Re: relfrozenxid may disagree with row XIDs after 1ccc1e05ae

On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 11:49:50AM -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 6:51 PM Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I ended up manually backporting the logic from 1ccc1e05ae as opposed
> > to cherry-picking because it relied on a struct introduced in
> > 4e9fc3a9762065.

> Attached is the backport and repros for 15 and 16.

> When this happends, a tuple with an xmax older than OldestXmin but newer

s/happends/happens/

> @@ -700,7 +707,7 @@ heap_prune_chain(Buffer buffer, OffsetNumber rootoffnum, PruneState *prstate)
>              break;
>  
>          Assert(ItemIdIsNormal(lp));
> -        Assert(prstate->htsv[offnum] != -1);
> +        Assert(htsv[offnum] != -1);

The master patch removed this assert instead.  Is the back branch non-removal
deliberate?  If so, the patch is ready.  I also confirm your results from your
repro recipe; thanks for including that.