Hello, Robert > My first question was whether TWO of them were dead code ... isn't an > aggressive vacuum to prevent wraparound, and a vacuum to prevent > wraparound aggressive? Maybe i am wrong, aggressive autovacuum was your commit. Message split was in b55509332f50f998b6e8b3830a51c5b9d8f666aa Aggressive autovacuum was in fd31cd265138019dcccc9b5fe53043670898bc9f
If aggressive really is wraparound without difference - i think we need refactor this code, it is difficult have two different flags for same purpose. But as far i can see it is possible have aggressive non-wraparound vacuum. One important difference - regular and aggressive regular can be canceled by backend,.wraparound autovacuum can not. (by checking PROC_VACUUM_FOR_WRAPAROUND in src/backend/storage/lmgr/proc.c ) regards, Sergei
