Re: New GUC autovacuum_max_threshold ?

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net>
Cc: Frédéric Yhuel <frederic(dot)yhuel(at)dalibo(dot)com>, wenhui qiu <qiuwenhuifx(at)gmail(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: 2025-01-13 20:21:04
Message-ID: Z4V1sDjqJ1CnqScY@nathan
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Here is a rebased version of the patch (commit ca9c6a5 adjusted the
documentation for vacuum-related GUCs).

--
nathan

Attachment Content-Type Size
v5-0001-Introduce-autovacuum_max_threshold.patch text/plain 10.3 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2025-01-13 20:22:46 Re: Adding skip scan (including MDAM style range skip scan) to nbtree
Previous Message Ilia Evdokimov 2025-01-13 20:18:18 Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f