On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 04:30:14PM -0500, Melanie Plageman wrote: > I wish we could say "* number of unfrozen tuples". I know that's not > true because we don't know how many tuples are on each page, but the > formula feels a little overly detailed this way. Anyway, this is fine. > I didn't apply and render the whole thing, but the wording looks good > to me.
Committed, thanks for looking. > It's actually interesting that we calculate the thresholds in tuples > when vacuum operates per page. And the per tuple costs are not really > as big of a deal as the per page costs. Hm... I wonder how much of a difference this makes and whether it's worth changing. -- nathan
