Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2019-05-02 12:59:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> One interesting thing that turns up in check-world is that if wal_level
>> is minimal, we have to manually force an XID to be assigned, else
>> reindexing pg_class fails with "cannot commit a transaction that deleted
>> files but has no xid" :-(. Perhaps there's some other cleaner place to
>> do that?
> Hm. We could replace that RecordTransactionCommit() with an xid
> assignment or such. But that seems at least as fragile. Or we could
> expand the logic we have for LogStandbyInvalidations() a few lines below
> the elog to also be able to handle files. IIRC that was introduced to
> handle somewhat related issues about being able to run VACUUM
> (containing invalidations) without an xid.
Well, that's something we can maybe improve later. I'm content to leave
the patch as it is for now.
>> if (RelationIsMapped(relation))
>> + {
>> + /* Since we're not updating pg_class, these had better not
>> change */
>> + Assert(classform->relfrozenxid == freezeXid);
>> + Assert(classform->relminmxid == minmulti);
>> + Assert(classform->relpersistence == persistence);
> Hm. Could we additionally assert that we're dealing with an index?
Will do.
>> + /* These changes are safe even for a mapped relation */
> You'd probably have noticed that, but this one probably has to go.
Ah, right. As I said, I'd not paid much attention to the comments yet.
I just finished a successful run of the core regression tests with CCA.
Given the calendar, I think that's about as much CCA testing as I should
do personally. I'll make a cleanup pass on this patch and try to get it
pushed within a few hours, if there are not objections.
How do you feel about the other patch to rejigger the order of operations
in CommandCounterIncrement? I think that's a bug, but it's probably
noncritical for most people. What I'm leaning towards for that one is
waiting till after the minor releases, then pushing it to all branches.
regards, tom lane
