On Sat, Mar 09, 2019 at 10:15:37AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> 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.
So, coming back to this thread, and studying the problem again, it
looks that the diagnostic that a non-aggressive, anti-wraparound
vacuum could be triggered because the worker sees trouble in the
force because of some activity happening in parallel. Hence, if we
face this case, it looks right to skip the vacuum for this relation.
Attached is an updated patch with a better error message, more
comments, and the removal of the anti-wraparound non-aggressive log
which was added in 28a8fa9. The error message could be better I
guess. Suggestions are welcome.
Thoughts?
--
Michael