On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 12:51 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> I feel that you should at least have a reproducer for these problems
> posted to the thread, and ideally a regression test, before committing
> things. I think it's very hard to understand what the problems are
> right now.
Hard to understand relative to what, exactly? We're talking about a
very subtle race condition here.
I'll try to come up with a reproducer, but I *utterly* reject your
assertion that it's a hard requirement, sight unseen. Why should those
be the parameters of the discussion?
For one thing I'm quite confident that I'm right, with or without a
reproducer. And my argument isn't all that hard to follow, if you have
relevant expertise, and actually take the time. But even this is
unlikely to matter much. Even if I somehow turn out to have been
completely wrong about the race condition, it is still self-evident
that the problem of uselessly WAL logging non-changes to the VM
exists. That doesn't require any concurrent access at all. It's a
natural consequence of calling visibilitymap_set() with
VISIBILITYMAP_ALL_FROZEN-only flags. You need only look at the code
for 2 minutes to see it.
> I don't particularly have a problem with the idea of 0001, because if
> we use InvalidTransactionId to mean that there cannot be any
> conflicts, we do not need FrozenTransactionId to mean the same thing.
> Picking one or the other makes sense.
We've already picked one, many years ago -- InvalidTransactionId. This
is a long established convention, common to all REDO routines that are
capable of creating granular conflicts.
I already committed 0001 over a week ago. We were calling
ResolveRecoveryConflictWithSnapshot with FrozenTransactionId arguments
before now, which was 100% guaranteed to be a waste of cycles. I saw
no need to wait more than a few days for a +1, given that this
particular issue was so completely clear cut.
--
Peter Geoghegan