Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table.

I'm not saying those ideas don't have problems, because they do.  But
I think they are worth further exploring.  The main reason I gave up
on that is because Heikki was working on the XID-to-LSN mapping stuff.
That seemed like a better approach than either of the above, so as
long as Heikki was working on that, there wasn't much reason to pursue
more lowbrow approaches.  Clearly, though, we need to do something
about this.  Freezing is a big problem for lots of users.

All that having been said, I don't think adding a new fork is a good
approach.  We already have problems pretty commonly where our
customers complain about running out of inodes.  Adding another fork
for every table would exacerbate that problem considerably.