Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2025 14:16:37 -0600
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net>
Cc: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>, Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>,
	Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	Jeremy Schneider <schneider@ardentperf.com>,
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread
Message-ID: <aROZpUyN1r24WyQ3@nathan>
References: 
 <CAApHDvqe7ee=vobWe4GVAt2gm_H6eiGNZeo_dEMptvHYAkibBA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAApHDvoCFQxaQjUncTAtCRFAeANe2tpc-WCkJue=FaXRYOkV=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA5RZ0sw+9rEaW9taNpRZWvuLYMjRa9iibneGfB2ftNSUHT0Ww@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAApHDvq_j+GVqX_ZAmvn236Mgg5OYQ6_s9kVsyoo1tJa2RJ=2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA5RZ0udjEYJupob5tv3286e28bMpajgsy+4nAbxg73YyigZFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAApHDvq9ecYSetXUhjMc7E_Jcc7gxxRkA0LosX9PP1-jM_Ak8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <aRNmEPQ18qZlLowV@nathan>
 <CABV9wwM_Q9+-AXga=t=RPXMYHRNoRK_UEqXy-Q8_=WcOjJ=iAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <aROTJV90-PUY1OZj@nathan>
 <CABV9wwP1TjLk4ZKuf4s0r_HWtny+ZK4DQr2BUFnUseQPwx5P9w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CABV9wwP1TjLk4ZKuf4s0r_HWtny+ZK4DQr2BUFnUseQPwx5P9w@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aROZpUyN1r24WyQ3%40nathan>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 02:50:55PM -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 2:49 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 02:43:19PM -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
>> > FWIW, when I have built these types of systems in the past, and when I
>> > wanted an aggressive recheck-type mechanism, the most common methods
>> > involved tying it to autovacuum_max_workers.
>>
>> Would you mind elaborating on this point?  Do you mean that you'd rebuild
>> the list every a_m_w tables, or something else?
> 
> Yes.

Interesting.  With our defaults, that would mean rebuilding the list every
few tables, which seems quite aggressive.  I'd start worrying about the
pg_class scanning overhead a little...

-- 
nathan