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