On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 7:57 AM Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> > The if-we're-going-to-delay-anyway path in vacuum_delay_point seems
> > OK to add a touch more overhead to, though.
>
> Alright, for this part at least, seems like it'd be something like the
> attached.
>
> Only lightly tested, but does seem to address the specific example which
> was brought up on this thread.
>
> Thoughts..?
+1