> > In other words, the reason n_ins_since_vacuum was introduced is to freeze > (committed) rows, so it should not need to track dead rows to do what it > intends > to do. >
Wouldn't that result in the rather strange behavior that 1 million dead rows might trigger a vacuum due to one threshold, 1 million inserted live rows might trigger a vacuum due to another threshold, while half a million dead plus half a million live fails to meet either threshold and fails to trigger a vacuum? What is the use case for that behavior? Perhaps you have one, but until you make it explicit, it is hard for others to get behind your proposal. — Mark Dilger EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
