Re: relfrozenxid may disagree with row XIDs after 1ccc1e05ae

Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>

From: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
To: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>
Cc: Bowen Shi <zxwsbg12138@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@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>
Date: 2024-06-25T19:37:40Z
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 Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 11:49:50AM -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 6:51 PM Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I ended up manually backporting the logic from 1ccc1e05ae as opposed
> > to cherry-picking because it relied on a struct introduced in
> > 4e9fc3a9762065.

> Attached is the backport and repros for 15 and 16.

> When this happends, a tuple with an xmax older than OldestXmin but newer

s/happends/happens/

> @@ -700,7 +707,7 @@ heap_prune_chain(Buffer buffer, OffsetNumber rootoffnum, PruneState *prstate)
>  			break;
>  
>  		Assert(ItemIdIsNormal(lp));
> -		Assert(prstate->htsv[offnum] != -1);
> +		Assert(htsv[offnum] != -1);

The master patch removed this assert instead.  Is the back branch non-removal
deliberate?  If so, the patch is ready.  I also confirm your results from your
repro recipe; thanks for including that.