Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 10:58:14 -0500
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: wenhui qiu <qiuwenhuifx@gmail.com>
Cc: Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>,
	Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	Jeremy Schneider <schneider@ardentperf.com>,
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread
Message-ID: <aQI5lnTL-AJd3de-@nathan>
References: 
 <CAApHDvpxE8ci83d02dRE3-fMetb4Dc89-80FrjkGDz2q+ByJog@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA5RZ0upTpKqgrdNfMSX7UJdjx=+=CsQ6Xct+vcCZPvUVhdZvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAApHDvp1=FOs6GneTzLSCHnCmC7z1_80=U3M=CKd82-pwS3YHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <aPuWev3D9M4iGCUt@nathan>
 <CAApHDvoM5MEHHBc0TNdrzkpq39WdEHSZhdWrtnx9zOWNXTSFGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <aP-YgrcPi0EhgR9x@nathan>
 <CAApHDvpOq09uVq7aXcuSBPAhZBTfAL-m2c4FOF2PphFe-YcnRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <aQEvm40W3aVizp5Q@nathan>
 <CAA5RZ0sdhUjVVKYbBGs1qFsYC3-Mn+as=K5v8ydVGR5iziabFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGjGUA+2VjT0GR0m+6GOkTxEGv6s92+8AeF=8Vwy1xeZSDtc=A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGjGUA+2VjT0GR0m+6GOkTxEGv6s92+8AeF=8Vwy1xeZSDtc=A@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aQI5lnTL-AJd3de-%40nathan>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 11:10:55AM +0800, wenhui qiu wrote:
> Typically, DBAs avoid setting autovacuum_freeze_max_age too close to
> vacuum_failsafe_age. Therefore, your logic most likely uses the
> vacuum_failsafe_age value.
> Would taking the average of the two be a better approach?

That approach would begin aggressively scaling the priority of tables
sooner, but I don't know if that's strictly better.  In any case, I'd like
to avoid making the score calculation too magical.

-- 
nathan