Hi, On 2022-02-18 13:09:45 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > 0001 is tricky in the sense that there are a lot of fine details, and > if you get any one of them wrong the result might be a subtle bug. For > example, the heap_tuple_needs_freeze() code path is only used when we > cannot get a cleanup lock, which is rare -- and some of the branches > within the function are relatively rare themselves. The obvious > concern is: What if some detail of how we track the new relfrozenxid > value (and new relminmxid value) in this seldom-hit codepath is just > wrong, in whatever way we didn't think of?
I think it'd be good to add a few isolationtest cases for the can't-get-cleanup-lock paths. I think it shouldn't be hard using cursors. The slightly harder part is verifying that VACUUM did something reasonable, but that still should be doable? Greetings, Andres Freund
