On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 09:20:15AM -0700, Mark Dilger wrote: > I have not been working on this issue lately, but as I recall, my > concern was that changing the behavior of autovacuum could introduce > regressions for some users, so we should be careful to get it right > before we rush to release anything. It didn't seem like the > proposed changes took enough into account. But that's clearly a > judgement call, having to do with how cautious any particular person > thinks we should be. I don't feel strongly enough to stand in the > way if the general concensus is that this is a good enough > implementation.
Echoing with what has been already mentioned on this thread, I think that autovacuum scheduling is a hard problem, and I would be rather scared to change by default a behavior that has proved to work in some cases, but could potentially doom others. I have an idea though: we could make the scheduling behavior of autovacuum optional. Anyway, the thread has stalled for a couple of months now, and we don't have a clear consensus about this approach, so I am marking this thread as returned with feedback. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
