On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 12:41 PM Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: > > 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.
That makes sense to me. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
