>> What I am saying is n_ins_since_vacuum should not account for aborted inserts.
>
> It does and from what I can see it should. You need to explain why it should not. More importantly, convincingly
enoughto change five year old behavior.
n_ins_since_vacuum was introduced to trigger autovacuum based on the #
of inserts
committed, and does not care about about dead tuples in this formula.
If I have a transaction that rolledback an insert of a million rows,
I expect autovacuum to kick in based on the fact there are now 1 million
n_dead_tup. n_ins_since_vacuumm is not relevant to the formula
for this case.
In other words, the reason n_ins_since_vacuum was introduced is to freeze
(committed) rows, so it should not need to track dead rows to do what it intends
to do.
--
Sami Imseih
