Re: recovering from "found xmin ... from before relfrozenxid ..."

On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 3:39 AM Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com> wrote:
> The other two messages for reporting unused items and dead items
> remain the same. Hence, with above change, we would be reporting the
> following 4 messages:
>
> NOTICE:  skipping all the tids in block %u for relation "%s" because
> the block number is out of range
>
> NOTICE:  skipping tid (%u, %u) for relation "%s" because the item
> number is out of range for this block
>
> NOTICE:  skipping tid (%u, %u) for relation "%s" because it is marked dead
>
> NOTICE:  skipping tid (%u, %u) for relation "%s" because it is marked unused
>
> Please let me know if you are okay with the above changes or not?

That seems broadly reasonable, but I would suggest phrasing the first
message like this:

skipping block %u for relation "%s" because the block number is out of range

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company