Re: New vacuum option to do only freezing - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: New vacuum option to do only freezing
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYVGqmuAQQ-dDK7WswQ5TGee8=A1V9z0oe44UHXm43bYA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: New vacuum option to do only freezing  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: New vacuum option to do only freezing
Re: New vacuum option to do only freezing
Re: New vacuum option to do only freezing
List pgsql-hackers
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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Commit message / hash in commitfest page.
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Calling pgstat_report_wait_end() before ereport(ERROR)