On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 2:52 PM Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.saw...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > So IIUC the problem is that since we skip both, > oldst_btpo_xact could be seen as a "future" xid during vacuum. Which > will be a cause of that vacuum misses pages which can actually be > recycled.
This is also my understanding of the problem. > I think we can fix this issue by calling vacuumcleanup callback when > an anti-wraparound vacuum even if INDEX_CLEANUP is false. That way we can > let index AM make decisions whether doing cleanup index at least once > until XID wraparound, same as before. +1 Can you work on a patch? -- Peter Geoghegan
