On Sat, 25 Oct 2025 at 10:14, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 3:35 PM David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If we had the varying sleep time as I mentioned above, the
> > failsafe code could even be removed as the
> > "autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay / <tables score>" calculation would
> > effectively zero the sleep time with any table > failsafe age.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "the failsafe could be removed".
> Importantly, the failsafe will abandon all further index vacuuming.
> That's why it's presented as something that you as a user are not
> supposed to rely on.
I didn't realise it did that too. I thought it just dropped the delay
to zero. In that case, I revoke the statement.
David