Re: New GUC autovacuum_max_threshold ?

On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 02:48:10PM +0100, Frédéric Yhuel wrote:
> For what it's worth, although I would have preferred the sub-linear growth
> thing, I'd much rather have this than nothing.

+1, this is how I feel, too.  But I also don't want to add something that
folks won't find useful.

> And I have to admit that the proposed formulas were either too convoluted or
> wrong.
>
> This very patch is more straightforward. Please let me know if I can help
> and how.

I read through the thread from the top, and it does seem like there is
reasonably strong support for the hard cap.  Upon a closer review of the
patch, I noticed that the relopt was defined such that you couldn't disable
autovacuum_max_threshold on a per-table basis, so I fixed that in v4.

--
nathan