Re: Vacuum ERRORs out considering freezing dead tuples from before OldestXmin

On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 12:07 PM Melanie Plageman
<melanieplageman@gmail.com> wrote:
> We didn't end up doing two index vacuum passes. Because it doesn't
> repro locally for me, I can only assume that the conditions for
> forcing two index vacuuming passes in master just weren't met in this
> case. I'm unsurprised, as it is much harder since 17 to force two
> passes of index vacuuming. It seems like this might be as unstable as
> I feared. I could add more dead data. Or, I could just commit the test
> to the back branches before 17. What do you think?

How much margin of error do you have, in terms of total number of
dead_items? That is, have you whittled it down to the minimum possible
threshold for 2 passes?

Some logging with VACUUM VERBOSE (run on the ci instance) might be illuminating.


--
Peter Geoghegan