Re: New IndexAM API controlling index vacuum strategies

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
Subject: Re: New IndexAM API controlling index vacuum strategies
Date: 2021-03-23 03:41:02
Message-ID: CAH2-Wzn3vE04MC=XAfPnT=x4zybNLF0YRLzMYUX9GrfA_X9amg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 8:33 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> More concretely, maybe the new GUC is forced to be 1.05 of
> vacuum_freeze_table_age. Of course that scheme is a bit arbitrary --
> but so is the existing 0.95 scheme.

I meant to write 1.05 of autovacuum_vacuum_max_age. So just as
vacuum_freeze_table_age cannot really be greater than 0.95 *
autovacuum_vacuum_max_age, your new GUC cannot really be less than
1.05 * autovacuum_vacuum_max_age.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2021-03-23 03:43:18 Re: Handling of opckeytype / CREATE OPERATOR CLASS (bug?)
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2021-03-23 03:33:55 Re: New IndexAM API controlling index vacuum strategies