MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20251008182520.6e05a8b8@ardentperf.com>
 <20251008184740.328d45de@ardentperf.com>
 <CAApHDvq76BBseUh2cG0=m=8r-j6HF_jrQt16Eszgsxp3bciGQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <aOffPCBoQLG5dGd8@nathan> <aOlC4aDoQcgW8ZpC@nathan>
 <CA+TgmoYC4ShRp8vcyrBjkefSBdFfY1fnUgCvjocN-iq55G-7bA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAApHDvqrd=SHVUytdRj55OWnLH98Rvtzqam5zq2f4XKRZa7t9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <aPea8dG8_lFwTsyo@nathan>
 <CAApHDvocam8_cxqO=LiSifgp0B3rs1=VWRVQiwAwz_DvOMgfVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <aPklC5V61VcTu7IP@nathan> <aPkpSXHB66islP3h@nathan>
 <CAApHDvqobtKMwJbhKB_c=3-TM=TgS3bcuvzcWMm3ee1c0mz9hw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH2-WzkF9=LAPoVCGKd-q9AOJtJFzGt8vJ9Bdq=3KrAsrhm68w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAH2-WzkF9=LAPoVCGKd-q9AOJtJFzGt8vJ9Bdq=3KrAsrhm68w@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2025 11:25:02 +1300
Message-ID: 
 <CAApHDvq5x+Su54QFhQDTkz+oUG2XbPGugOgp2YbhrTXTbbrGJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>,
 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	Jeremy Schneider <schneider@ardentperf.com>,
 Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.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/CAApHDvq5x%2BSu54QFhQDTkz%2BoUG2XbPGugOgp2YbhrTXTbbrGJQ%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 25 Oct 2025 at 10:14, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 3:35=E2=80=AFPM David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.co=
m> 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