On Tue, 2020-03-17 at 17:26 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2020-03-17 01:14:02 +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote: > > lazy_check_needs_freeze() is only called for an aggressive vacuum, which > > this isn't. > > Hm? I mean some of these will be aggressive vacuums, because it's older > than vacuum_freeze_table_age? And the lower age limit would make that > potentially more painful, no?
You are right. I thought of autovacuum_freeze_max_age, but not of vacuum_freeze_table_age. Autovacuum configuration is so woefully complicated that it makes me feel bad to propose two more parameters :^( Yours, Laurenz Albe
