Re: Fixing a couple of buglets in how VACUUM sets visibility map bits

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Fixing a couple of buglets in how VACUUM sets visibility map bits
Date: 2023-01-12 03:46:59
Message-ID: CAH2-Wz=b9PVxdoJazbSC0F8mf4pRfugAjQJY5WC-yKVMVc27wQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 12:58 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 11:57 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > Afaict we'll need to backpatch this all the way?
>
> I thought that we probably wouldn't need to, at first. But I now think
> that we really have to.

Attached is v4. This is almost the same as v3. The only notable change
is in how the issue is explained in comments, and in the commit
message.

I have revised my opinion on this question once more. In light of what
has come to light about the issue from recent testing, I lean towards
a HEAD-only commit once again. What do you think?

I still hope to be able to commit this on my original timeline (on
Monday or so), without the issue taking up too much more of
everybody's time.

Thanks
--
Peter Geoghegan

Attachment Content-Type Size
v4-0001-Tighten-up-VACUUM-s-approach-to-setting-VM-bits.patch application/octet-stream 11.1 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2023-01-12 04:03:02 Re: Using WaitEventSet in the postmaster
Previous Message Tom Lane 2023-01-12 03:45:33 Re: on placeholder entries in view rule action query's range table