Re: New GUC autovacuum_max_threshold ?

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: wenhui qiu <qiuwenhuifx(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Frédéric Yhuel <frederic(dot)yhuel(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih(at)amazon(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: New GUC autovacuum_max_threshold ?
Date: 2025-01-07 22:57:41
Message-ID: Z32xZZwOi5pXZjYU@nathan
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Here is a rebased patch for cfbot. AFAICT we are still pretty far from
consensus on which approach to take, unfortunately.

--
nathan

Attachment Content-Type Size
v3-0001-autovacuum_max_threshold.patch text/plain 9.9 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2025-01-07 23:32:07 Re: Reduce TupleHashEntryData struct size by half
Previous Message Rafael Thofehrn Castro 2025-01-07 22:27:25 Re: Proposal: Progressive explain