I wrote:
> the vacuum in test_setup sees
> ...
> removable cutoff: 724, older by 26 xids when operation ended
> ...
BTW, before I forget: the wording of this log message is just awful.
On first sight, I thought that it meant that we'd computed OldestXmin
a second time and discovered that it advanced by 26 xids while the VACUUM
was running. Looking at the code, I see that's not so:
diff = (int32) (ReadNextTransactionId() - OldestXmin);
appendStringInfo(&buf,
_("removable cutoff: %u, older by %d xids when
operation ended\n"),
OldestXmin, diff);
but good luck understanding what it actually means from the message
text alone. I think more appropriate wording would be something like
"removable cutoff: %u, which was %d xids old when operation ended\n"
Also, is it really our practice to spell XID in lower-case in
user-facing messages?
Thoughts, better ideas?
regards, tom lane
