Horton

Re: relfrozenxid may disagree with row XIDs after 1ccc1e05ae

Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>

View thread
From: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Date: 2024-04-15T20:52:04Z
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Ensure vacuum removes all visibly dead tuples older than OldestXmin

  2. Combine freezing and pruning steps in VACUUM

  3. Handle non-chain tuples outside of heap_prune_chain()

  4. Fix false reports in pg_visibility

  5. Remove retry loop in heap_page_prune().

  6. vacuumlazy.c: document vistest and OldestXmin.

  7. Deduplicate choice of horizon for a relation procarray.c.

  8. Remove tupgone special case from vacuumlazy.c.

  9. Simplify state managed by VACUUM.

  10. Recycle nbtree pages deleted during same VACUUM.

  11. snapshot scalability: Don't compute global horizons while building snapshots.

  12. Raise error when affecting tuple moved into different partition.

On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 12:35:59PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I propose to remove this open item from
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_17_Open_Items
> 
> On the original thread (BUG #17257), Alexander Lakhin says that he
> can't reproduce this after dad1539ae/18b87b201. Based on my analysis

I have observed the infinite loop in production with v15.5, so that
non-reproduce outcome is a limitation in the test procedure.  (v14.2 added
those two commits.)

> of the code, I suspect that there is a residual bug, or at least that
> there was one prior to 6f47f6883151366c031cd6fd4011e66d2c702a90.

Can you say more about how 6f47f6883151366c031cd6fd4011e66d2c702a90 mitigated
the regression that 1ccc1e05ae introduced?  Thanks for discovering that.