On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 12:54 PM Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Patches attached. > 1. vacuum_anti_wraparound.v2.patch > 2. vacuumdb_anti_wrap.v1.patch - depends upon (1)
I don't like the use of ANTI_WRAPAROUND as a name for this new option. Wouldn't it make more sense to call it AGGRESSIVE? Or maybe something else, but I dislike anti-wraparound. It's neither the most aggressive thing we can do to prevent wraparound (that's FREEZE), nor is it the case that vacuums without this option (or indeed any options) can't help prevent wraparound, because the aggressive strategy may be chosen anyway. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
