> On Mar 19, 2025, at 12:12, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> Assuming this analysis is correct, I agree that the FSM vacuuming should
> also be throttled, as long as that can be done without blocking
> concurrent operations (insertions) on the table.
From an (admittedly somewhat naïve) look at the code, it appears that having it honor the cost delay wouldn't introduce
excessiveblocking, as long as the delay wasn't implemented at a really dumb place.