On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 18:25:20 -0700 Jeremy Schneider <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 14:03:34 +1300 > David Rowley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I thought if we're to have a priority queue that it would be hard to > > argue against sorting by how far over the given auto-vacuum > > threshold that the table is. If you assume that a table that just > > meets the dead rows required to trigger autovacuum based on the > > autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor setting gets a priority of 1.0, but > > another table that has n_mod_since_analyze twice over the > > autovacuum_analyze_scale_factor gets priority 2.0. Effectively, > > prioritise by the percentage over the given threshold the table is. > > That way users could still tune things when they weren't happy with > > the priority given to a table by adjusting the corresponding > > reloption. > > If users are tuning this thing then I feel like we've already lost the > battle :) I replied too quickly. Re-reading your email, I think your proposing a different algorithm, taking tuple counts into account. No tunables. Is there a fully fleshed out version of the proposed alternative algorithm somewhere? (one of the older threads?) I guess this is why its so hard to get anything committed in this area... -J
