Hi, On 2021-05-06 13:35:56 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 12:32 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > I think it'd be a good idea to audit the other uses of > > all_visible_according_to_vm to make sure there's no issues there. Can't > > this e.g. make us miss setting all-visible in > > > > /* > > * Handle setting visibility map bit based on what the VM > > said about > > * the page before pruning started, and using prunestate > > */ > > if (!all_visible_according_to_vm && prunestate.all_visible) > > I don't think so, because it's the inverse case -- the condition that > you quote is concerned with the case where we found the VM all_visible > bit to not be set earlier, and then found that we could set it now.
Uh, yes, that is exactly my point. Because all_visible_according_to_vm is "falsely true", we'll not enter this branch, even though we actually would want to mark it all visible again. If we did update all_visible_according_to_vm after acquiring the content lock, we would have entered this branch, no? Greetings, Andres Freund
