Re: Testing autovacuum wraparound (including failsafe)

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 7:53 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> I mainly suggested it because to me the current seems hard to
> understand. I do think it'd be better to check more often. But checking
> depending on the amount of dead tuples at the right time doesn't strike
> me as a good idea - a lot of anti-wraparound vacuums will mainly be
> freezing tuples, rather than removing a lot of dead rows. Which makes it
> hard to understand when the failsafe kicks in.

I'm convinced -- decoupling the logic from the one-pass-not-two pass
case seems likely to be simpler and more useful. For both the one pass
and two pass/has indexes case.

--
Peter Geoghegan