Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 4:51 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Yeah, we have band-aided around this type of problem repeatedly.
>> Making a fix that's readily accessible from any test script
>> seems like a good idea.
> We might even be able to consistently rely on this new option, given
> *any* problem involving test stability and VACUUM. Having a
> one-size-fits-all solution to these kinds of stability problems would
> be nice -- no more DISABLE_PAGE_SKIPPING bandaids.
My guess is that you'd need both this new wait-for-horizon behavior
*and* DISABLE_PAGE_SKIPPING. But the two together ought to make
for pretty reproducible behavior. I noticed while scanning the
commit log that some patches have tried adding a FREEZE option,
which seems more like waving a dead chicken than anything that'd
improve stability.
We'd not necessarily have to embed wait-for-horizon into VACUUM
itself. It seems like a SQL-accessible function could be written
and then called before any problematic VACUUM. I like this better
for something we're thinking of jamming in post-feature-freeze;
we'd not be committing to the feature quite as much as if we
added a VACUUM option.
regards, tom lane
