On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 02:38:51PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > Having now played with the patch, I'll suggest that 10000000 is too high a > > threshold. If autovacuum runs without FREEZE, I don't see why it couldn't > > be > > much lower (100000?) or use (0.2 * n_ins + 50) like the other autovacuum > > GUC. > > ISTM that the danger of regressing workloads due to suddenly repeatedly > scanning huge indexes that previously were never / rarely scanned is > significant
You're right - at one point, I was going to argue to skip index cleanup, and I think wrote that before I finished convincing myself why it wasn't ok to skip. -- Justin
