On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 10:25:50AM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 4:14 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> The idea seems sound to me, and IMO your patch simplifies things nicely, >> which might be reason enough to proceed with it. > > It is primarily a case of making things simpler. Why would it ever > make sense to interpret age differently in the presence of a long > running transaction, though only for the FreezeLimit/MultiXactCutoff > cutoff calculation? And not for the closely related > freeze_table_age/multixact_freeze_table_age calculation? It's hard to > imagine that that was ever a deliberate choice. > > vacuum_set_xid_limits() didn't contain the logic for determining if > its caller's VACUUM should be an aggressive VACUUM until quite > recently. Postgres 15 commit efa4a9462a put the logic for determining > aggressiveness right next to the logic for determining FreezeLimit, > which made the inconsistency much more noticeable. It is easy to > believe that this was really just an oversight, all along.
Agreed. -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
