On 2019-Mar-29, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 09:11:47AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > + (errmsg_internal("found vacuum to prevent wraparound of
> > table \"%s.%s.%s\" to be not aggressive, so skipping",
> >
> > This might convey something to hackers, but I doubt it will convey much
> > to regular users. Perhaps something like "skipping redundant
> > anti-wraparound vacuum of table ..." would be better.
>
> "skipping redundant" is much better.
Yeah, that looks good to me too. I wonder if we really need it as LOG
though; we don't say anything for actions unless they take more than the
min duration, so why say something for a no-op that takes almost no time?
Maybe make it DEBUG1.
> > The comment is also a bit too tentative. Perhaps something like this
> > would do:
> >
> > Normally the relfrozenxid for an anti-wraparound vacuum will be old
> > enough to force an aggressive vacuum. However, a concurrent vacuum
> > might have already done this work that the relfroxzenxid in relcache
> > has been updated. If that happens this vacuum is redundant, so skip it.
>
> That works for me.
s/relfroxzenxid/relfrozenxid/
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services