On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 2:52 PM Masahiko Sawada
<masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> So IIUC the problem is that since we skip both,
> oldst_btpo_xact could be seen as a "future" xid during vacuum. Which
> will be a cause of that vacuum misses pages which can actually be
> recycled.
This is also my understanding of the problem.
> I think we can fix this issue by calling vacuumcleanup callback when
> an anti-wraparound vacuum even if INDEX_CLEANUP is false. That way we can
> let index AM make decisions whether doing cleanup index at least once
> until XID wraparound, same as before.
+1
Can you work on a patch?
--
Peter Geoghegan
