Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread

On Sun, Nov 23, 2025 at 4:55 AM David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
> One thing that seems to be getting forgotten again is the "/* Stop
> applying cost limits from this point on */" added in 1e55e7d17 is only
> going to be applied when the table *currently* being vaccumed is over
> the failsafe limit. Without Nathan's patch, the worker might end up
> idling along carefully obeying the cost limits on dozens of other
> tables before it gets around to vacuuming the table that's over the
> failsafe limit, then suddenly drop the cost delay code and rush to get
> the table frozen, before Postgres stops accepting transactions. With
> the patch, Nathan has added some aggressive score scaling, which
> should mean any table over the failsafe limit has the highest score
> and gets attended to first.

Right, so can we use that to construct a specific, concrete scenario
where we can see that the patch ends up delivering better behavior
than we have today? I think it would be a really good to have at least
one fully worked-out case where we can say "look, if you run this
series of commands without the patch, X happens, and with the patch, Y
happens, and look! Y is better."

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com