Hello! It seems like the idea of "old" snapshot is still a valid one.
> Should this deal with any potential XID wraparound, too? As far as I understand in our case, we are not affected by this in any way. Vacuum in our table is not possible because of locking, so, nothing may be frozen (see below). In the case of super long index building, transactional limits will stop new connections using current regular infrastructure because it is based on relation data (but not actual xmin of backends). > How does this behave when the newly inserted tuple's xmin gets frozen? > This would be allowed to happen during heap page pruning, afaik - no > rules that I know of which are against that - but it would create > issues where normal snapshot visibility rules would indicate it > visible to both snapshots regardless of whether it actually was > visible to the older snapshot when that snapshot was created... As I can see, heap_page_prune never freezes any tuples. In the case of regular vacuum, it used this way: call heap_page_prune and then call heap_prepare_freeze_tuple and then heap_freeze_execute_prepared. Merry Christmas, Mikhail.
