On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 3:39 PM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, a very simple algorithm would be: If the maximum number of workers > have been running continuously for more than, say, > 10 minutes, assume we're falling behind Hmm, I don't know about the validity of this. I've seen plenty of cases where we hit the max workers but all is just fine. On the other hand, I don't have an alternative trigger point yet. But I do overall like the idea of dynamically changing the delay. And agree it is pretty conservative. > 2. If we decided to gradually increase the rate of vacuuming instead of > just removing the throttling all at once, what formula would we use > and why would that be the right idea? Well, since the idea of disabling the delay is on the table, we could raise the cost every minute by X% until we effectively reach an infinite cost / zero delay situation. I presume this would only affect currently running vacs, and future ones would get the default cost until things get triggered again? Cheers, Greg
