On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 4:46 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> There is no reason to think that the user will also (say) set the
> autovacuum_freeze_table_age reloption separately (not to be confused
> with the vacuum_freeze_table_age GUC!). We'll usually just work off
> the GUC (I mean why wouldn't we?
The autovacuum_freeze_max_age reloption exists so that the DBA can
optionally have antiwraparound autovacuums run against a table that
requires more frequent antiwraparound autovacuums. This has problems
because there are actually two types of VACUUM right now (aggressive
and non-aggressive), which
