2016-03-18 16:25 GMT+03:00 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> No, it's not a bug, and it's not going to be fixed. For many of the
> intended applications of those counts (e.g, determining whether
> autovacuum/autoanalyze is needed), this is the correct behavior
> and ignoring actions of failed transactions would be incorrect.
>
Thank you for clarifying.
> The live/dead tuple counts do attempt to take transaction success
> into account; perhaps looking at those would be more helpful for
> your use-case?
I'll take a look on that counters, thanks.
