On 11.11.2011 19:15, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 11.11.2011 17:47, Tom Lane wrote:
>> (3) In disaster
>> recovery scenarios, the last thing we want is to be imposing extra
>> conditions on what an already-stressed DBA has to do to fix things;
>> especially extra conditions that are different from the way it's worked
>> for the last ten years.
>
> True.
On second thought, if XID wraparound is close enough that the DBA has to
log in to do manual vacuums to avoid it, relfrozenxid of the
trouble-making tables are surely older than default
vacuum_freeze_table_age, so plain VACUUM is enough to scan the whole table.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
