On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 6:20 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> > And I observe that commenting out condition in following code fixes the test.
> > //if (!(statusFlags & PROC_IN_SAFE_IC))
> > h->data_oldest_nonremovable =
> > TransactionIdOlder(h->data_oldest_nonremovable, xmin);
>
> Well, by doing so, I think that you are just making the CIC/REINDEX
> wait again until the index is safe to use, but we want to skip this
> wait as of the optimization done in d9d0762.
Uh...isn't that exactly the point that Andrey made himself, in posting
the snippet?
You seem to be addressing this PROC_IN_SAFE_IC snippet as if Andrey
formally proposed it as a bugfix, which seems like an odd
interpretation to me. It seems pretty clear to me that Andrey was just
making an observation, in case it helped with debugging.
--
Peter Geoghegan