Re: More aggressive vacuuming of temporary tables

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> But now I do wonder why we need to know whether the command is top level
> or not? Why isn't the correct thing to instead look at what the current
> backend's xmin is? Seems like you could just replace
>     *oldestXmin = XidFromFullTransactionId(ReadNextFullTransactionId());
> with
>     *oldestXmin = MyProc->xmin;
>     Assert(TransactionIdIsValid(*oldestXmin));

Ummm ... since VACUUM doesn't run inside a transaction, it won't be
advertising an xmin will it?

Maybe you could make something like this work, but I think it'd still
have to treat CLUSTER as a special case.  Not sure it's worth it.

			regards, tom lane