On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 9:07 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > I'm not sure that's correct. If you do that, it'll end up in the
> > non-tupgone case, which might try to freeze a tuple that should've
> > been removed. Or am I confused?
>
> If we're failing to remove it, and it's below the desired freeze
> horizon, then we'd darn well better freeze it instead, no?
I don't know that that's safe. IIRC, the freeze code doesn't cope
nicely with being given a tuple that actually ought to have been
deleted. It'll just freeze it anyway, which is obviously bad.
Unless this has been changed since I last looked at it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
