On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 07:14, Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: > > 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?
Yes, I'll submit a bug fix patch. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
