On 2017-12-14 17:00:29 -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2017-11-13 19:03:41 -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > > diff --git a/src/backend/access/heap/rewriteheap.c > > b/src/backend/access/heap/rewriteheap.c > > index f93c194e182..7d163c91379 100644 > > --- a/src/backend/access/heap/rewriteheap.c > > +++ b/src/backend/access/heap/rewriteheap.c > > @@ -407,7 +407,10 @@ rewrite_heap_tuple(RewriteState state, > > * While we have our hands on the tuple, we may as well freeze any > > * eligible xmin or xmax, so that future VACUUM effort can be saved. > > */ > > - heap_freeze_tuple(new_tuple->t_data, state->rs_freeze_xid, > > + heap_freeze_tuple(new_tuple->t_data, > > + > > state->rs_old_rel->rd_rel->relfrozenxid, > > + state->rs_old_rel->rd_rel->relminmxid, > > + state->rs_freeze_xid, > > state->rs_cutoff_multi); > > Hm. So this requires backpatching the introduction of > RewriteStateData->rs_old_rel into 9.3, which in turn requires a new > argument to begin_heap_rewrite(). It originally was added in the > logical decoding commit (i.e. 9.4). > > I'm fine with that, but it could theoretically cause issues for somebody > with an extension that calls begin_heap_rewrite() - which seems unlikely > and I couldn't find any that does so. > > Does anybody have a problem with that?
Pushed this way. Moved some more relfrozenxid/relminmxid tests outside of the cutoff changes, polished some error messages. Alvaro, Michael, Peter, and everyone else I'd greatly appreciate if you could have a look at the backported version, just about everything but v10 had conflicts, some of them not insubstantial. Greetings, Andres Freund
