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

On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 7:33 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>

Okay, thanks for the confirmation. I'll do that.

--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com