On Tue, 2020-03-17 at 17:26 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2020-03-17 01:14:02 +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > lazy_check_needs_freeze() is only called for an aggressive vacuum, which
> > this isn't.
>
> Hm? I mean some of these will be aggressive vacuums, because it's older
> than vacuum_freeze_table_age? And the lower age limit would make that
> potentially more painful, no?
You are right. I thought of autovacuum_freeze_max_age, but not of
vacuum_freeze_table_age.
Autovacuum configuration is so woefully complicated that it makes me
feel bad to propose two more parameters :^(
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
