On 8/2/22 3:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
"Jonathan S. Katz" <jk...@postgresql.org> writes:On 8/2/22 3:23 PM, Robert Haas wrote:I'm not quite sure how to rule that theory in or out, though.Without overcomplicating this, are we able to check to see if autovacuum ran during the course of the test?Looks like we're all thinking along the same lines. While not smoking guns, these definitely prove that autovac was active.
> If that is the explanation, then it leaves us with few good options. > I am not in favor of disabling autovacuum in the test: ordinary > users are not going to do that while pg_upgrade'ing, so it'd make > the test less representative of real-world usage, which seems like > a bad idea. We could either drop this particular check again, or > weaken it to allow new relfrozenxid >= old relfrozenxid, likewise > relminxid.The test does look helpful and it would catch regressions. Loosely quoting Robert on a different point upthread, we don't want to turn off the alarm just because it's spuriously going off.
I think the weakened check is OK (and possibly mimics the real-world where autovacuum runs), unless you see a major drawback to it?
Jonathan
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
