On 2025-Oct-08, Sami Imseih wrote:
> One risk I see with this approach is that we will end up autovacuuming
> tables that also take the longest time to complete, which could cause
> smaller, quick-to-process tables to be neglected.
Perhaps we can have autovacuum workers decide on a mode to use at
startup (or launcher decides for them), and use different prioritization
heuristics depending on the mode. For instance if we're past max freeze
age for any tables then we know we have to first vacuum tables with
higher MXID ages regardless of size considerations, but if there's at
least one worker in that mode then we use the mode where smaller
high-churn tables go first.
--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"No nos atrevemos a muchas cosas porque son difíciles,
pero son difíciles porque no nos atrevemos a hacerlas" (Séneca)
