> On 27 Apr 2023, at 16:53, Melanie Plageman <melanieplage...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 8:55 AM Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> wrote: >> >>> On 27 Apr 2023, at 14:10, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Good catch. I think the problem is that vacuum_rel() is called >>> recursively and we don't reset VacuumFailsafeActive before vacuuming >>> the toast table. I think we should reset it in heap_vacuum_rel() >>> instead of Assert(). It's possible that we trigger the failsafe mode >>> only for either one.Please find the attached patch. >> >> Agreed, that matches my research and testing, I have the same diff here and >> it >> passes testing and works as intended. This was briefly discussed in [0] and >> slightly upthread from there but then missed. I will do some more looking >> and >> testing but I'm fairly sure this is the right fix, so unless I find something >> else I will go ahead with this. >> >> xid_wraparound is a really nifty testing tool. Very cool.Makes sense to me >> too. > > Fix LGTM. Thanks for review. I plan to push this in the morning. > Though we previously set it to false before this series of patches, > perhaps it is > worth adding a comment about why VacuumFailsafeActive must be reset here > even though we reset it before vacuuming each table? Agreed. -- Daniel Gustafsson
