On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 11:37 AM Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote:
>
> Your concern is that the horizon might be overly aggressive/too
> conservative. But your patch (for 16) makes us take the
> don't-use-snapshotConflictHorizon-twice block *less* frequently (and
> the "use OldestXmin conservatively" block *more* frequently):
>
> - if (prunestate->all_visible && prunestate->all_frozen)
> + if (prunestate->all_visible && prunestate->all_frozen && lpdead_items == 0)
> {
> /* Using same cutoff when setting VM is now unnecessary */
> snapshotConflictHorizon = prunestate->visibility_cutoff_xid;
> prunestate->visibility_cutoff_xid = InvalidTransactionId;
> }
> else
> {
> /* Avoids false conflicts when hot_standby_feedback in use */
> snapshotConflictHorizon = vacrel->cutoffs.OldestXmin;
> TransactionIdRetreat(snapshotConflictHorizon);
> }
>
> How can taking the "Avoids false conflicts when hot_standby_feedback
> in use" path more often result in fewer unnecessary conflicts on
> standbys? Isn't it the other way around?
You're right. I forgot that the visibility_cutoff_xid will be older
than OldestXmin when all the tuples are going to be frozen. I
associate the visibility_cutoff_xid with being younger/newer than
OldestXmin because it often will be when there are newer live tuples
we don't freeze.
And, in the case where the page is not actually all-frozen because of
LP_DEAD items we haven't accounted for yet in the value of all_frozen,
they wouldn't affect the freeze record's snapshot conflict horizon in
16 because they won't be frozen and thus unaffected by the WAL record
and in the case of the prune/freeze WAL record in 17/master, I
calculate the newer of the latest_xid_removed and the snapshot
conflict horizon calculated for freezing, so it would also be fine.
- Melanie
