On Fri, 2022-11-25 at 14:47 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > Attached WIP patch invents the idea of a regular autovacuum that is > tasked with advancing relfrozenxid -- which is really just another > trigger criteria, reported on in the server log in its autovacuum > reports. Of course we retain the idea of antiwraparound autovacuums. > The only difference is that they are triggered when table age has > advanced by twice the usual amount, which is presumably only possible > because a regular autovacuum couldn't start or couldn't complete in > time (most likely due to continually being auto-cancelled). > > As I said before, I think that the most important thing is to give > regular autovacuuming a chance to succeed. The exact approach taken > has a relatively large amount of slack, but that probably isn't > needed. So the new antiwraparound cutoffs were chosen because they're > easy to understand and remember, which is fairly arbitrary.
The target is a table that receives no DML at all, right? I think that is a good idea. Wouldn't it make sense to trigger that at *half* "autovacuum_freeze_max_age"? Yours, Laurenz Albe
