Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > Peter Eisentraut escribió: >> Autovacuum has existed for N years and nobody complained about this >> until just now, so I don't see a strong justification for backpatching.
> I disagree about people not complaining. Maybe the complaints have not > been specifically about the wraparound stuff and toast tables, but for > sure there have been complaints about autovacuum not giving more > priority to tables that need work more urgently. FWIW, I don't see that this is too scary to back-patch. It's unlikely to make things worse than the current coding, which is more or less pg_class tuple order. I do suggest that it might be wise not to try to squeeze it into the early-February update releases. Put it in master as soon as we agree on the behavior, then back-patch after the next updates. That will give us a couple months' testing, rather than a few days, before it hits any release tarballs. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers