Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables

Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I think if we backpatch this we should only prefer wraparound tables and
> leave the rest unchanged.

That's not a realistic option, at least not with anything that uses this
approach to sorting the tables.  You'd have to assume that qsort() is
stable which it probably isn't.

> I don't think the argument that the pg_class order might work better
> than anything holds that much truth - its not like thats something
> really stable.

I find that less than credible as well.
        regards, tom lane