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>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAApHDvqobtKMwJbhKB_c=3-TM=TgS3bcuvzcWMm3ee1c0mz9hw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 17:13:53 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAH2-WzkF9=LAPoVCGKd-q9AOJtJFzGt8vJ9Bdq=3KrAsrhm68w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
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/CAH2-WzkF9%3DLAPoVCGKd-q9AOJtJFzGt8vJ9Bdq%3D3KrAsrhm68w%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 3:35=E2=80=AFPM 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.

--=20
Peter Geoghegan