On 2021-Mar-02, David Rowley wrote: > However, I wonder if it's worth going a few steps further to try and > reduce the chances of that message being seen in the first place. > Maybe it's worth considering ditching any (auto)vacuum cost limits for > any table which is within X transaction from wrapping around. > Likewise for "VACUUM;" when the database's datfrozenxid is getting > dangerously high.
Yeah, I like this kind of approach, and I think one change we can do that can have a very large effect is to disable index cleanup when in emergency situations. That way, the XID limit is advanced as much as possible with as little effort as possible; once the system is back in normal conditions, indexes can be cleaned up at a leisurely pace. -- Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile "El destino baraja y nosotros jugamos" (A. Schopenhauer)
