SimpleLruTruncate() mutual exclusion

I'm forking this thread from
https://postgr.es/m/flat/20190202083822.GC32531@gust.leadboat.com, which
reported a race condition involving the "apparent wraparound" safety check in
SimpleLruTruncate():

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 11:26:23PM -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
> 1. The result of the test is valid only until we release the SLRU ControlLock,
>    which we do before SlruScanDirCbDeleteCutoff() uses the cutoff to evaluate
>    segments for deletion.  Once we release that lock, latest_page_number can
>    advance.  This creates a TOCTOU race condition, allowing excess deletion:
> 
>    [local] test=# table trunc_clog_concurrency ;
>    ERROR:  could not access status of transaction 2149484247
>    DETAIL:  Could not open file "pg_xact/0801": No such file or directory.

> Fixes are available:

> b. Arrange so only one backend runs vac_truncate_clog() at a time.  Other than
>    AsyncCtl, every SLRU truncation appears in vac_truncate_clog(), in a
>    checkpoint, or in the startup process.  Hence, also arrange for only one
>    backend to call SimpleLruTruncate(AsyncCtl) at a time.

More specifically, restrict vac_update_datfrozenxid() to one backend per
database, and restrict vac_truncate_clog() and asyncQueueAdvanceTail() to one
backend per cluster.  This, attached, was rather straightforward.

I wonder about performance in a database with millions of small relations,
particularly considering my intent to back-patch this.  In such databases,
vac_update_datfrozenxid() can be a major part of the VACUUM's cost.  Two
things work in our favor.  First, vac_update_datfrozenxid() runs once per
VACUUM command, not once per relation.  Second, Autovacuum has this logic:

	 * ... we skip
	 * this if (1) we found no work to do and (2) we skipped at least one
	 * table due to concurrent autovacuum activity.  In that case, the other
	 * worker has already done it, or will do so when it finishes.
	 */
	if (did_vacuum || !found_concurrent_worker)
		vac_update_datfrozenxid();

That makes me relatively unworried.  I did consider some alternatives:

- Run vac_update_datfrozenxid()'s pg_class scan before taking a lock.  If we
  find the need for pg_database updates, take the lock and scan pg_class again
  to get final numbers.  This doubles the work in cases that end up taking the
  lock, so I'm not betting it being a net win.

- Use LockWaiterCount() to skip vac_update_datfrozenxid() if some other
  backend is already waiting.  This is similar to Autovacuum's
  found_concurrent_worker test.  It is tempting.  I'm not proposing it,
  because it changes the states possible when manual VACUUM completes.  Today,
  you can predict post-VACUUM datfrozenxid from post-VACUUM relfrozenxid
  values.  If manual VACUUM could skip vac_update_datfrozenxid() this way,
  datfrozenxid could lag until some concurrent VACUUM finishes.

Thanks,
nm