On Thu, 2023-10-19 at 17:08 +0000, Murthy Nunna wrote: > I retried with -F. That actually worked and lowered the relfrozenxid of the table. > > 1) I am wondering if -F option interferes with application (table lock, row lock etc). No, it only does more work and wil use more resources. > 2) It says "aggressively vacuuming "<table>". Do you always see this with -F option? > Is it harmless in terms of locking select/insert/update/delete statements from application? "Aggressive" is not as nasty as it sounds. It just means that it won't skip pages that are all-visible or pinned by other backends. My guess is that vacuumdb --disable-page-skipping --no-index-cleanup -d <database> -t <table> would have worked as well, and it would have been cheaper. Yours, Laurenz Albe
