Re: Wrong usage of RelationNeedsWAL

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 01:23:36AM -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 06:02:11PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > At Thu, 21 Jan 2021 00:19:58 -0800, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote in
> > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:28:44AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > > > However, with the previous patch, two existing tests sto_using_cursor
> > > > and sto_using_select behaves differently from the master. That change
> > > > is coming from the omission of actual LSN check in TestForOldSnapshot
> > > > while wal_level=minimal. So we have no choice other than actually
> > > > updating page LSN.
> > > >
> > > > In the scenario under discussion there are two places we need to do
> > > > that. one is heap_page_prune, and the other is RelationCopyStorge. As
> > > > a PoC, I used gistXLogAssignLSN() as is for thie purpose. See the
> > > > attached third file.
> > >
> > > Fake LSNs make the system harder to understand, so I prefer not to spread fake
> > > LSNs to more access methods. What I had in mind is to simply suppress early
> > > pruning when the relation is skipping WAL. Attached. Is this reasonable? It
> > > passes the older tests. While it changes the sto_wal_optimized.spec output, I
> > > think it preserves the old_snapshot_threshold behavior contract.
> >
> > Perhaps I'm missing something, but the patch doesn't pass the v5-0001
> > test with wal_level=minimal?
>
> Correct. The case we must avoid is letting an old snapshot read an
> early-pruned page without error. v5-0001 expects "ERROR: snapshot too old".
> The patch suspends early pruning, so that error is not applicable.

I think the attached version is ready. The changes since v6nm are cosmetic:

- Wrote log messages
- Split into two patches, since the user-visible bugs are materially different
- Fixed typos
- Ran perltidy

Is it okay if I push these on Saturday, or would you like more time to
investigate?