Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut escribi:
>> Autovacuum has existed for N years and nobody complained about this
>> until just now, so I don't see a strong justification for backpatching.

> I disagree about people not complaining. Maybe the complaints have not
> been specifically about the wraparound stuff and toast tables, but for
> sure there have been complaints about autovacuum not giving more
> priority to tables that need work more urgently.

FWIW, I don't see that this is too scary to back-patch. It's unlikely
to make things worse than the current coding, which is more or less
pg_class tuple order.

I do suggest that it might be wise not to try to squeeze it into the
early-February update releases. Put it in master as soon as we agree
on the behavior, then back-patch after the next updates. That will
give us a couple months' testing, rather than a few days, before it
hits any release tarballs.

regards, tom lane