Re: confusion about this commit "Revert "Skip redundant anti-wraparound vacuums""

i attach our another case, many tables have over 200 million xid age, and these relation can not be autovacuum for long time until we freeze them manually.

| |
jiye
|
|
jiye_sw(at)126(dot)com
|
---- Replied Message ----
| From | jiye<jiye_sw(at)126(dot)com> |
| Date | 6/5/2023 13:50 |
| To | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org<pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject | Re: confusion about this commit "Revert "Skip redundant anti-wraparound vacuums"" |
we can not get determinate test case as this issue reproduce only once, and currently autovaccum can works as we using vacuum freeze for each tables of each database.

our client's application is real online bank business, and have serveral customer database, do a majority of update opertaion as result trigger some table dead_tup_ratio nealy 100%, but can not find any autovacuum process work for a very long time before we do vacuum freeze manally.

and out autovacuum params as follow:

| |
jiye
|
|
jiye_sw(at)126(dot)com
|
---- Replied Message ----
| From | Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Date | 6/5/2023 11:37 |
| To | jiye<jiye_sw(at)126(dot)com> |
| Cc | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org<pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject | Re: confusion about this commit "Revert "Skip redundant anti-wraparound vacuums"" |
jiye <jiye_sw(at)126(dot)com> writes:
in our test enviroment, if one database's have major update operations, autovacuum does not work and cause major performance degradation.
if found this issue may be resolved by revert this Skip redundant anti-wraparound vacuums · postgres/postgres(at)2aa6e33 (github.com) commit.

Please provide a self-contained test case illustrating this report.

regards, tom lane