Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:27 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> (2) independently of that, it sounds like REFRESH
>> MATERIALIZED VIEW CONCURRENTLY is somehow preventing advancement of the
>> matview's relfrozenxid in the source DB.
> Not necessarily. I have vacuum_table_freeze_max_age set to 350M, so
> it's not yet due for freezing.
Perhaps, but it seems pretty suggestive that all of the non-concurrently
refreshed matviews have relfrozenxid significantly newer than all of
the concurrently refreshed ones. Maybe that's just coincidence, or a
predictable outcome of your usage pattern, but I think it needs
explaining.
regards, tom lane