On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 3:58 PM David Rowley <[email protected]> wrote: > before we need to make a decision. My vote is to use as much of that > time as possible rather than using it to allow people to dream up > hypothetical problems that might or might not exist.
That seems a little harsh. I think the only hypothesis necessary for my concern to be valid is the hypothesis that whatever algorithm we've selected may not always work well. I admit that I could be wrong in thinking so; there are plenty of heuristics in PostgreSQL that are so effective that nobody ever cares about tuning them. But there's enough problems with autovacuum that I don't think it's a particularly adventurous hypothesis, either. That said, I accept your point that even if we were to agree that something ought to made tunable here, we would still have the problem of deciding exactly what GUCs or reloptions to add, and that might be hard to figure out without more information. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that unless you or someone here is planning to make a determined testing effort over the coming months, we're more likely to get feedback after final release than during development or even beta. But I do also understand that you don't want us to be paralyzed and never move forward. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
