On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 12:54 PM Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Patches attached.
> 1. vacuum_anti_wraparound.v2.patch
> 2. vacuumdb_anti_wrap.v1.patch - depends upon (1)
I don't like the use of ANTI_WRAPAROUND as a name for this new option.
Wouldn't it make more sense to call it AGGRESSIVE? Or maybe something
else, but I dislike anti-wraparound. It's neither the most aggressive
thing we can do to prevent wraparound (that's FREEZE), nor is it the
case that vacuums without this option (or indeed any options) can't
help prevent wraparound, because the aggressive strategy may be
chosen anyway.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
