MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAApHDvq_j+GVqX_ZAmvn236Mgg5OYQ6_s9kVsyoo1tJa2RJ=2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA5RZ0udjEYJupob5tv3286e28bMpajgsy+4nAbxg73YyigZFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAApHDvq9ecYSetXUhjMc7E_Jcc7gxxRkA0LosX9PP1-jM_Ak8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <aRNmEPQ18qZlLowV@nathan>
 <CAApHDvrtvMF3_W69hOUr2SnbizjC1jc68_Ca0nPYr=+VUkUkAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <aROY-MUVO_mYTl2f@nathan>
 <CAApHDvpo3YxiaP123vghHL-aLkY2vc-e1scpDSpaTFWz1qVaQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABV9wwOcD4RM5Hm0d+=KBK8LyHLtEtF3YZ4ak8V3VvOYV9Z4Tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <aRTpqMleDpoQm9OO@nathan>
 <CA+TgmoY27S+nbgdCrVrc8S4p38NwTAC8_Uyq5ZaX6zxYToebXA@mail.gmail.com>
 <aR9BATffJN-hmQ1w@nathan>
 <CAA5RZ0vJH5k+tWbCG-tLfSCb7=jngwLkQHdwPLo8gP92mg2i_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmobEGG4pUzLMY-02N_FEY8uW4520X3rTB+BdVNUkLzDLMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAApHDvqK=dUa35oZjG8kh+A-aPof2pfsNmb-WXTMVHduKpm6bQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAApHDvqK=dUa35oZjG8kh+A-aPof2pfsNmb-WXTMVHduKpm6bQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2025 16:16:23 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CA+TgmoYCLqE-1vX9uhryF7NhOAT0v6+RP8E303u6rRgpFUiWyg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Cc: Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>,
 Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>,
	Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net>, Jeremy Schneider <schneider@ardentperf.com>,
 pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoYCLqE-1vX9uhryF7NhOAT0v6%2BRP8E303u6rRgpFUiWyg%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 3:58=E2=80=AFPM David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>=
 wrote:
> before we need to make a decision. My vote is to use as much of that
> time as possible rather than using it to allow people to dream up
> hypothetical problems that might or might not exist.

That seems a little harsh. I think the only hypothesis necessary for
my concern to be valid is the hypothesis that whatever algorithm we've
selected may not always work well. I admit that I could be wrong in
thinking so; there are plenty of heuristics in PostgreSQL that are so
effective that nobody ever cares about tuning them. But there's enough
problems with autovacuum that I don't think it's a particularly
adventurous hypothesis, either.

That said, I accept your point that even if we were to agree that
something ought to made tunable here, we would still have the problem
of deciding exactly what GUCs or reloptions to add, and that might be
hard to figure out without more information. Unfortunately, I have a
feeling that unless you or someone here is planning to make a
determined testing effort over the coming months, we're more likely to
get feedback after final release than during development or even beta.
But I do also understand that you don't want us to be paralyzed and
never move forward.

--=20
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com