On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 09:11:47AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> + (errmsg_internal("found vacuum to prevent wraparound of
> table \"%s.%s.%s\" to be not aggressive, so skipping",
>
> This might convey something to hackers, but I doubt it will convey much
> to regular users. Perhaps something like "skipping redundant
> anti-wraparound vacuum of table ..." would be better.
"skipping redundant" is much better.
> The comment is also a bit too tentative. Perhaps something like this
> would do:
>
> Normally the relfrozenxid for an anti-wraparound vacuum will be old
> enough to force an aggressive vacuum. However, a concurrent vacuum
> might have already done this work that the relfroxzenxid in relcache
> has been updated. If that happens this vacuum is redundant, so skip it.
That works for me.
--
Michael
