On Wednesday, January 9, 2013, Noah Misch wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 02:45:36AM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > > On 8 January 2013 02:49, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > There is a bug in lazy_scan_heap()'s > > > bookkeeping for the xid to place in that WAL record. Each call to > > > heap_page_prune() simply overwrites vacrelstats->latestRemovedXid, but > > > lazy_scan_heap() expects it to only ever increase the value. I have a > > > attached a minimal fix to be backpatched. It has lazy_scan_heap() > ignore > > > heap_page_prune()'s actions for the purpose of this conflict xid, > because > > > heap_page_prune() emitted an XLOG_HEAP2_CLEAN record covering them. > > > > Interesting. Yes, bug, and my one of mine also. > > > > ISTM the right fix is fix to correctly initialize on pruneheap.c line 176 > > prstate.latestRemovedXid = *latestRemovedXid; > > better to make it work than to just leave stuff hanging. > > That works, too. >
As bug fixes don't usually go through the commit-fest process, will someone be committing one of these two ideas for the back-branches? And to HEAD, in case the more invasive patch doesn't make it in? I have a preliminary nit-pick on the big patch. It generates a compiler warning: vacuumlazy.c: In function ‘lazy_scan_heap’: vacuumlazy.c:445:9: warning: variable ‘prev_dead_count’ set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable] Thanks, Jeff
