On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 9:59 PM Andres Freund <andres@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