On Fri, 2022-10-21 at 17:39 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > One small thought on the presentation/docs side of this: maybe it > would be better to invent a new kind of autovacuum
It's possible this would be easier for users to understand: one process that does cleanup work over time in a way that minimizes interference; and another process that activates in more urgent situations (perhaps due to misconfiguration of the first process). But we should be careful that we don't end up with more confusion. For something like that to work, we'd probably want the second process to not be configurable at all, and we'd want it to be issuing WARNINGs pointing to what might be misconfigured, and otherwise just be invisible. > That way we wouldn't be fighting against the widely held perception > that antiwraparound autovacuums are scary. There's certainly a terminology problem there. Just to brainstorm on some new names, we might want to call it something like "xid reclamation" or "xid horizon advancement". When it starts to run out, we can use words like "wraparound" or "exhaustion". -- Jeff Davis PostgreSQL Contributor Team - AWS
