Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> writes:
> It couldn't hurt to do that as well, in passing (at the same time as
> testing that newrelfrozenxid >= oldrelfrozenxid directly). But
> deliberately running VACUUM afterwards seems like a good idea. We
> really ought to expect VACUUM to catch cases where
> relfrozenxid/relminmxid is faulty, at least in cases where it can be
> proven wrong by noticing some kind of inconsistency.
That doesn't seem like it'd be all that thorough: we expect VACUUM
to skip pages whenever possible. I'm also a bit concerned about
the expense, though admittedly this test is ridiculously expensive
already.
regards, tom lane
