On 2017-12-07 17:41:56 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > Looking at 0002: I agree with the stuff being done here. I think a > > > couple of these checks could be moved one block outerwards in term of > > > scope; I don't see any reason why the check should not apply in that > > > case. I didn't catch any place missing additional checks. > > > > I think I largely put them into the inner blocks because they were > > guaranteed to be reached in those case (the horizon has to be before the > > cutoff etc), and that way additional branches are avoided. > > Hmm, it should be possible to call vacuum with a very low freeze_min_age > (which sets a very recent relfrozenxid), then shortly thereafter call it > with a large one, no? So it's not really guaranteed ...
Fair point! - Andres
