On 2020-09-21 17:03:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > On 2020-09-21 16:40:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> >>> I think that's an argument for what I suggested elsewhere, which is that
> >>> we should move the logic for a different horizon for temp tables out of
> >>> vacuum_set_xid_limits, and into procarray.
>
> >> But procarray does not seem like a great place for
> >> table-persistence-dependent decisions either?
>
> > That ship has sailed a long long time ago though. GetOldestXmin() has
> > looked at the passed in relation for a quite a while, and even before
> > that we had logic about 'allDbs' etc. It doesn't easily seem possible
> > to avoid that, given how intimately that's coupled with how snapshots
> > are built and used, database & vacuumFlags checks etc.
>
> OK. Given that you've got strong feelings about this, do you want to
> propose a patch? I'm happy to fix it, since it's at least in part my
> bug, but I probably won't do it exactly like you would.
I can give it a try. I can see several paths of varying invasiveness,
not sure yet what the best approach is. Let me think about if for a bit.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
