On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 04:30:14PM -0500, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> I wish we could say "* number of unfrozen tuples". I know that's not
> true because we don't know how many tuples are on each page, but the
> formula feels a little overly detailed this way. Anyway, this is fine.
> I didn't apply and render the whole thing, but the wording looks good
> to me.
Committed, thanks for looking.
> It's actually interesting that we calculate the thresholds in tuples
> when vacuum operates per page. And the per tuple costs are not really
> as big of a deal as the per page costs.
Hm... I wonder how much of a difference this makes and whether it's worth
changing.
--
nathan