On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 10:47 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> Well I just don't understand why you insist on using the word
> "skipping." I think what we're talking about - or at least what we
> should be talking about - is whether relation_needs_vacanalyze() sets
> *wraparound = true right after the comm
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 1:16 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I think that you'd agree that the arguments in favor of skipping are
> strongest ...
Well I just don't understand why you insist on using the word
"skipping." I think what we're talking about - or at least what we
should be talking about -
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 6:05 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> I think this is a reasonable line of thinking, but I think it's a
> little imprecise. In general, we could be vacuuming a relation to
> advance relfrozenxid, but we could also be vacuuming a relation to
> advance relminmxid, or we could be vacuu
On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 8:47 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I am currently working on decoupling advancing relfrozenxid from tuple
> freezing [1]. That is, I'm teaching VACUUM to keep track of
> information that it uses to generate an "optimal value" for the
> table's final relfrozenxid: the most rec
Robert Haas has written on the subject of useless vacuuming, here:
http://rhaas.blogspot.com/2020/02/useless-vacuuming.html
I'm sure at least a few of us have thought about the problem at some
point. I would like to discuss how we can actually avoid useless
vacuuming, and what our goals should be
