Hi, On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 04:24:45AM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote: > On Thu, 2024-04-25 at 14:33 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > Another reason, at least in existing releases, is that at some > > point index vacuuming hits a wall because we run out of space for dead > > tuples. We *most definitely* want to do index vacuuming before we get > > to the point where we're going to have to do multiple cycles of index > > vacuuming. > > That is more convincing. But do we need a GUC for that? What about > making a table eligible for autovacuum as soon as the number of dead > tuples reaches 90% of what you can hold in "autovacuum_work_mem"?
Due to the improvements in v17, this would basically never trigger accordings to my understanding, or at least only after an excessive amount of bloat has been accumulated. Michael
