Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread

Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>

To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>

Cc: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Jeremy Schneider <schneider@ardentperf.com>, Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org

Date: 2025-10-24T21:13:53Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

Add rudimentary table prioritization to autovacuum.
- d7965d65fc5b 19 (unreleased) landed
Trigger more frequent autovacuums with relallfrozen
- 06eae9e6218a 18.0 cited
Harden nbtree page deletion.
- c34787f91058 14.0 cited
Check for interrupts inside the nbtree page deletion code.
- 3a01f68e35a3 12.0 cited

On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 3:35 PM David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
> If we had the varying sleep time as I mentioned above, the
> failsafe code could even be removed as the
> "autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay / <tables score>" calculation would
> effectively zero the sleep time with any table > failsafe age.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the failsafe could be removed".
Importantly, the failsafe will abandon all further index vacuuming.
That's why it's presented as something that you as a user are not
supposed to rely on.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan