Re: Vacuum ERRORs out considering freezing dead tuples from before OldestXmin

Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>

To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Cc: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>

Date: 2024-07-22T16:00:51Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

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

Test that vacuum removes tuples older than OldestXmin
- 2c0bc4765741 17.6 landed
- 303ba0573ce6 18.0 landed
- 80c34692e8e6 17.0 landed
- aa607980aee0 18.0 landed
Lower minimum maintenance_work_mem to 64kB
- 2eda3df9ad53 17.0 landed
- bbf668d66fbf 18.0 landed
Add accidentally omitted test to meson build file
- 9d198f4d3e3b 16.4 landed
Use DELETE instead of UPDATE to speed up vacuum test
- 924a08b76f5d 14.13 landed
- 9744fe24118b 15.8 landed
- 571e0ee40ebd 16.4 landed
Revert "Test that vacuum removes tuples older than OldestXmin"
- efcbb76efe40 18.0 landed
- 1a3e90948b50 17.0 landed
Ensure vacuum removes all visibly dead tuples older than OldestXmin
- fd4f12df5e46 17.0 landed
- 83c39a1f7f3f 18.0 landed

On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 11:49 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> Andres has suggested in the past that we allow maintenance_work_mem be
> >> set to a lower value or introduce some kind of development GUC so that
> >> we can more easily test multiple pass index vacuuming. Do you think
> >> this would be worth it?
>
> > No, I don't.
>
> I don't see why that's not a good idea.

I don't think that it's worth going to that trouble. Testing multiple
passes isn't hard -- not in any real practical sense.

I accept that there needs to be some solution to the problem of the
tests timing out on slow running buildfarm animals. Your
PG_TEST_SKIP_SLOW proposal seems like a good approach.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan