Horton

Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>
Cc: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Jeremy Schneider <schneider@ardentperf.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2025-10-23T18:47:51Z
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 →

  1. Add rudimentary table prioritization to autovacuum.

  2. Trigger more frequent autovacuums with relallfrozen

  3. Harden nbtree page deletion.

  4. Check for interrupts inside the nbtree page deletion code.

On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 01:22:24PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
> I was looking at v3, and I understand the formula will be updated in the
> next version. However, do you think we should benchmark the approach
> of using an intermediary list to store the eligible tables and sorting
> that list,
> which may cause larger performance overhead for databases with hundreds
> of tables that may all be eligible for autovacuum. I do think such cases
> out there are common, particularly in multi-tenant type databases, where
> each tenant could be one or more tables.

We already have an intermediary list of table OIDs, so the additional
overhead is ultimately just the score calculation and the sort operation.
I'd be quite surprised if that added up to anything remotely worrisome,
even for thousands of eligible tables.

-- 
nathan