On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 03:49:02PM +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> I've transformed Peter's test into TAP test that runs ~20 seconds
> and reliably reproduces problem on my laptop.
Thanks for the TAP test. That's nice. It actually passes here,
reliably.
> 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.
--
Michael