Re: Report oldest xmin source when autovacuum cannot remove tuples

From: wenhui qiu <qiuwenhuifx(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Shinya Kato <shinya11(dot)kato(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>, Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Report oldest xmin source when autovacuum cannot remove tuples
Date: 2026-06-26 14:54:44
Message-ID: CAGjGUA+F4yMC=aHxGerx6L4VBZ0VzaxveoKChW8GPYa0VW77TA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi

> > I'd prefer to keep the GID. pg_prepared_xacts is volatile, so by the
> > time someone analyzes the VACUUM log, the transaction is usually gone.
> > Logging the GID makes retrospective investigation much easier for
> > DBAs. Given the minimal overhead, I've kept it in v6.

Agree +1 ,The more detailed the information, the more helpful it is for
the DBA.

Thanks

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Previous Message Robert Haas 2026-06-26 14:53:48 Re: [GSoC 2026] - B-tree Index Bloat Reduction - Approach & Questions