On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 9:07 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > I'm not sure that's correct. If you do that, it'll end up in the > > non-tupgone case, which might try to freeze a tuple that should've > > been removed. Or am I confused? > > If we're failing to remove it, and it's below the desired freeze > horizon, then we'd darn well better freeze it instead, no?
I don't know that that's safe. IIRC, the freeze code doesn't cope nicely with being given a tuple that actually ought to have been deleted. It'll just freeze it anyway, which is obviously bad. Unless this has been changed since I last looked at it. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
