Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2020-09-21 16:40:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
>>> I think that's an argument for what I suggested elsewhere, which is that
>>> we should move the logic for a different horizon for temp tables out of
>>> vacuum_set_xid_limits, and into procarray.
>> But procarray does not seem like a great place for
>> table-persistence-dependent decisions either?
> That ship has sailed a long long time ago though. GetOldestXmin() has
> looked at the passed in relation for a quite a while, and even before
> that we had logic about 'allDbs' etc. It doesn't easily seem possible
> to avoid that, given how intimately that's coupled with how snapshots
> are built and used, database & vacuumFlags checks etc.
OK. Given that you've got strong feelings about this, do you want to
propose a patch? I'm happy to fix it, since it's at least in part my
bug, but I probably won't do it exactly like you would.
regards, tom lane
