On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 9:59 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > I'm not sure there's a proper bug on HEAD here. I think at worst it can delay > the horizon increasing a bunch, by falsely not using an aggressive vacuum when > we should have - might even be limited to a single autovacuum cycle.
So, to be clear: vac_update_relstats() never actually considered the new relfrozenxid value from its vacuumlazy.c caller to be "in the future"? It just looked that way to the failing assertion in vacuumlazy.c, because its own version of the original relfrozenxid was stale from the beginning? And so the worst problem is probably just that we don't use aggressive VACUUM when we really should in rare cases? -- Peter Geoghegan
