On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 11:22:05AM +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote: > I'm marking patch as ready for committer.
Thanks. > I can't tell should we backpatch insurance patch or not: it potentially fixes > unknown bugs, and potentially contains unknown bugs. I can't reason because > of such uncertainty. I've tried to look for any potential problem and as for > now I see none. Chances are <slru-truncate-t-insurance-v5.patch> is doing > code less error-prone. What do you think of abandoning slru-truncate-t-insurance entirely? As of https://postgr.es/m/20200330052809.gb2324...@rfd.leadboat.com I liked the idea behind it, despite its complicating the system for hackers and DBAs. The TruncateMultiXact() interaction rendered it less appealing. In v14+, commit cd5e822 mitigates the kind of bugs that slru-truncate-t-insurance mitigates, further reducing the latter's value. slru-truncate-t-insurance does mitigate larger trespasses into unlink-eligible space, though. > Fix <slru-truncate-modulo-v6.patch> certainly worth backpatching. I'll push it on Saturday, probably.
