On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 05:05:53PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > I notice that this seems never to have been acted on. I think we should > apply this and remove the (confusing) message setting for the case we'll > now be avoiding. If not we should at least comment there that this is a > case we only expect to see in pathological cases.
Sorry for dropping the ball, I would have assumed that Robert would handle it as he is at the origin of the introduction of the aggressive option via fd31cd26. + elog(DEBUG1, "relation %d has been vacuumd ocncurrently, skip", The proposed patch has two typos in two words. I am adding an open item about that. I think I could commit the patch, but I need to study it a bit more first. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
