Hi, On 2021-06-14 11:53:47 +0200, Matthias van de Meent wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 at 19:43, Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 10:29 AM Matthias van de Meent > > <boekewurm+postg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I see one exit for HEAPTUPLE_DEAD on a potentially recently committed > > > xvac (?), and we might also check against recently committed > > > transactions if xmin == xmax, although apparently that is not > > > implemented right now. > > > > I don't follow. Perhaps you can produce a test case? > > If you were to delete a tuple in the same transaction that you create > it (without checkpoints / subtransactions), I would assume that this > would allow us to vacuum the tuple, as the only snapshot that could > see the tuple must commit or roll back.
Right now we do not do so, but I think we talked about adding such logic a couple times. I think a more robust assertion than aborted-ness could be to assert that repeated retries are not allowed to have the same "oldest xid" than a previous retry. With oldest xid be the older of xmin/xmax? Greetings, Andres Freund
