> On Mar 23, 2021, at 12:05 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 005 is doing "logical"
> damage rather than "physical" damage, and I don't see why autovacuum
> should misbehave in that kind of case. In fact, the fact that
> autovacuum can handle such cases is one of the selling points for the
> whole design of vacuum, as opposed to, for example, retail index
> lookups.
That is a good point. Checking that autovacuum behaves sensibly despite sort
order breakage sounds reasonable, but test 005 doesn't do that reliably,
because it does nothing to make sure that autovacuum runs against the affected
table during the short window when the affected table exists. All the same, I
don't see that turning autovacuum off is required. If autovacuum is broken in
this regard, we may get occasional, hard to reproduce build farm failures, but
that would be more informative than no failures at all.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
