Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables

On 2013-01-25 12:52:46 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > I think if we backpatch this we should only prefer wraparound tables and
> > leave the rest unchanged.
> 
> That's not a realistic option, at least not with anything that uses this
> approach to sorting the tables.  You'd have to assume that qsort() is
> stable which it probably isn't.

Well, comparing them equally will result in an about as arbitrary order
as right now, so I don't really see a problem with that. I am fine with
sorting them truly randomly as well (by assining a temporary value when
putting it into the list so the comparison is repeatable and conforms to
the triangle inequality etc).

Greetings,

Andres Freund

-- Andres Freund                       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services