Tom Lane pisze:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
>
>> Yeah, maybe we should make it put the failed table at the end of the
>> list, for the next run. This is not simple to implement, if only
>> because autovac workers don't have any way to persist state from one run
>> to the next. But this kind of thing causes enough problems that it's
>> probably worth it.
>>
>
>
>> One thing to keep in mind, though, is that a persistent error in a
>> single table is enough to keep a database's datfrozenxid from advancing,
>> and thus shut down in case the wraparound horizon comes too close. So
>> perhaps what we need is more visibility into autovacuum problems.
>>
>
> +1 for the latter. A recurrent vacuum failure is something that needs
> to be dealt with ASAP, not partially-worked-around.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
I am revisiting invalid page header cases due to my problem explained in
another recent post from me.
I am not tracing development process too closely. But, as I can see the
9.0 is almost out, let me ask here if this problem has been taken care of?