On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm worried about the case of a very, very frequently updated table
> getting put ahead of a table that needs a wraparound vacuum, but only
> just. It doesn't sit well with me to think that the priority of that
> goes from 0 (we don't even try to update it) to infinity (it goes
> ahead of all tables needing to be vacuumed for dead tuples) the
> instant we hit the vacuum_freeze_table_age.
What if it were the instant we hit autovacuum_freeze_max_age, not
vacuum_freeze_table_age? Or does the current behavior already do
this? Which process is responsible for enforcing
autovacuum_freeze_max_age?
Cheers,
Jeff
