Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> Yeah, maybe we should make it put the failed table at the end of the
> list, for the next run. This is not simple to implement, if only
> because autovac workers don't have any way to persist state from one run
> to the next. But this kind of thing causes enough problems that it's
> probably worth it.
> One thing to keep in mind, though, is that a persistent error in a
> single table is enough to keep a database's datfrozenxid from advancing,
> and thus shut down in case the wraparound horizon comes too close. So
> perhaps what we need is more visibility into autovacuum problems.
+1 for the latter. A recurrent vacuum failure is something that needs
to be dealt with ASAP, not partially-worked-around.
regards, tom lane
