On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 at 12:42, Melanie Plageman <melanieplage...@gmail.com> wrote: > Attached is a v12 of the whole vacuum_buffer_usage_limit patch set which > includes a commit to fix the bug in master and a commit to move relevant > code from vacuum() up into ExecVacuum().
I'm still playing catch up to the moving of the pre-checks from vacuum() to ExecVacuum(). I'm now wondering... Is it intended that VACUUM t1,t2; now share the same strategy? Currently, in master, we'll allocate a new strategy for t2 after vacuuming t1. Does this not mean we'll now leave fewer t1 pages in shared_buffers because the reuse of the strategy will force them out with t2 pages? I understand there's nothing particularly invalid about that, but it is a change in behaviour that the patch seems to be making with very little consideration as to if it's better or worse. David
