On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 at 13:27, Jeremy Schneider <schneider@ardentperf.com> wrote:
> I'm arguing that it works well with autovacuum. Not saying there aren't
> going to be certain workloads that it's suboptimal for. We're talking
> about sorting by (M)XID age. As the clock continues to move forward any
> table that doesn't get processed naturally moves up the queue for the
> next autovac run. I think the concerns are minimal here and this would
> be a good change in general.
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.
It just seems strange to me to only account for 1 of the 4 trigger
points for autovacuum when it's possible to account for all 4 without
much extra trouble.
David
