On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 8:33 PM Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: > More concretely, maybe the new GUC is forced to be 1.05 of > vacuum_freeze_table_age. Of course that scheme is a bit arbitrary -- > but so is the existing 0.95 scheme.
I meant to write 1.05 of autovacuum_vacuum_max_age. So just as vacuum_freeze_table_age cannot really be greater than 0.95 * autovacuum_vacuum_max_age, your new GUC cannot really be less than 1.05 * autovacuum_vacuum_max_age. -- Peter Geoghegan
