On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 12:46 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 7:04 AM Bossart, Nathan <bossa...@amazon.com> wrote: > > > > I guess I'm ultimately imagining the new options as replacing the > > vacuumdb implementation. IOW vacuumdb would just use MIN_(M)XID_AGE > > behind the scenes (as would a new top-level command). > > I had the same idea.
This seems to be the motivating reason for wanting new configurability on the server side. In any case, new knobs are out of scope for this thread. If the use case is compelling enough, may I suggest starting a new thread? Regarding the thread subject, I've been playing with the grammar, and found it's quite easy to have VACUUM FOR WRAPAROUND or VACUUM FOR EMERGENCY since FOR is a reserved word (and following that can be an IDENT plus a strcmp check) and cannot conflict with table names. This sounds a bit more natural than VACUUM LIMIT. Opinions? -- John Naylor EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
