Re: Overhauling "Routine Vacuuming" docs, particularly its handling of freezing

On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 12:09 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 9:16 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 9:08 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> > > I disagree. If you start the cluster in single-user mode, you can
> > > actually wrap it around, unless something has changed that I don't
> > > know about.

+1 Pretending otherwise is dishonest.

> > This patch relies on John's other patch which strongly discourages the
> > use of single-user mode. Were it not for that, I might agree.

Oh that's rich. I'll note that 5% of your review was actually helpful
(actual correction), the other 95% was needless distraction trying to
enlist me in your holy crusade against the term "wraparound". It had the
opposite effect.

> Also, it's not clear that the term "wraparound" even describes what
> happens when you corrupt the database by violating the "no more than
> ~2.1 billion XIDs distance between any two unfrozen XIDs" invariant in
> single-user mode. What specific thing will have wrapped around?

In your first message you said "I'm hoping that I don't get too much push
back on this, because it's already very difficult work."

Here's some advice on how to avoid pushback:

1. Insist that all terms can only be interpreted in the most pig-headedly
literal sense possible.
2. Use that premise to pretend basic facts are a complete mystery.
3. Claim that others are holding you back, and then try to move the
goalposts in their work.

--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com