I think I'll set autovacuum_freeze_max_age a lot lower than the default
200 M.
Hmm… not sure what you really want to accomplish?
Administrating a high volume database and went the other way; with it set to 800M; however, auto vacuum set aggressively. I don’t want to see wrap around/freeze vacuums occurring as they are more aggressive than auto vacuum, a good indicator that vacuuming is not occurring enough, and will block where normal auto vacuums will yield. Really shouldn’t run into blocking issue unless issuing DDL statements; which the application shouldn’t do anyway. It does happen though; despite not allowing DDLs an applicatoin developer thought it would be wise to embed statistics updating on a table. The result is that the application would be denied but it still required a lock on the table to do so; the result is the freeze operation blocked the application.