Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>

To: wenhui qiu <qiuwenhuifx@gmail.com>

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

Date: 2025-10-29T15:58:14Z

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 29, 2025 at 11:10:55AM +0800, wenhui qiu wrote:
> Typically, DBAs avoid setting autovacuum_freeze_max_age too close to
> vacuum_failsafe_age. Therefore, your logic most likely uses the
> vacuum_failsafe_age value.
> Would taking the average of the two be a better approach?

That approach would begin aggressively scaling the priority of tables
sooner, but I don't know if that's strictly better.  In any case, I'd like
to avoid making the score calculation too magical.

-- 
nathan