On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 9:57 AM Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > It looks that way, but how would a broken non-shared index have held up > autovacuuming in other databases? Maybe, as this one's xmin horizon > got further and further behind, the launcher eventually stopped > considering launching workers into any other databases? That seems > like a bad thing; it's postponing work that will need to be done > eventually. I don't know exactly how the launcher would behave offhand, but it's clear that not being able to VACUUM one table in one database (because it has a corrupt index) ultimately risks the availability of every database in the cluster. Many installations receive little to no supervision, so it may just be a matter of time there. That is certainly a bad thing. -- Peter Geoghegan
