Re: New strategies for freezing, advancing relfrozenxid early

On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 8:24 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> > I think we're on a very dangerous path here. I want VACUUM to be
> > better as the next person, but I really don't believe that's the
> > direction we're headed. I think if we release like this, we're going
> > to experience more VACUUM pain, not less. And worse still, I don't
> > think anyone other than Peter and Andres is going to understand why
> > it's happening.
>
> I think that the only sensible course of action at this point is for
> me to revert the page-level freezing commit from today, and abandon
> all outstanding work on VACUUM. I will still stand by the basic
> page-level freezing work, at least to the extent that I am able to.

I have now reverted today's commit. I have also withdrawn all
remaining work from the patch series as a whole, which is reflected in
the CF app. Separately, I have withdrawn 2 other VACUUM related
patches of mine via the CF app: the antiwraparound autovacuum patch
series, plus a patch that did some further work on freezing
MultiXacts.

I have no intention of picking any of these patches back up again. I
also intend to completely avoid new work on both VACUUM and
autovacuum, not including ambulkdelete() code run by index access
methods. I will continue to do maintenance and bugfix work when it
happens to involve VACUUM, though.

For the record, in case it matters: I certainly have no objection to
anybody else picking up any of this unfinished work for themselves, in
part or in full.

--
Peter Geoghegan