On 2019-Mar-29, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 09:11:47AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > + (errmsg_internal("found vacuum to prevent wraparound of > > table \"%s.%s.%s\" to be not aggressive, so skipping", > > > > This might convey something to hackers, but I doubt it will convey much > > to regular users. Perhaps something like "skipping redundant > > anti-wraparound vacuum of table ..." would be better. > > "skipping redundant" is much better.
Yeah, that looks good to me too. I wonder if we really need it as LOG though; we don't say anything for actions unless they take more than the min duration, so why say something for a no-op that takes almost no time? Maybe make it DEBUG1. > > The comment is also a bit too tentative. Perhaps something like this > > would do: > > > > Normally the relfrozenxid for an anti-wraparound vacuum will be old > > enough to force an aggressive vacuum. However, a concurrent vacuum > > might have already done this work that the relfroxzenxid in relcache > > has been updated. If that happens this vacuum is redundant, so skip it. > > That works for me. s/relfroxzenxid/relfrozenxid/ -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services