Re: Suspicious behaviour on applying XLOG_HEAP2_VISIBLE.

On 2016-04-15 19:59:06 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> For me, the issue is that we need to do something to catch bugs. The
> existing code does not have any test at all to check whether we are doing
> the wrong thing - it just lets the wrong thing happen.

But sending the message, without assigning an xid, *IS* the right thing
to do here? We shouldn't assign an xid, and we need to send the message
out to the standbys.


> Fixing it by forcing a new behaviour might be the right thing to do going
> forwards, but I don't much like the idea of forcing new behaviour in back
> branches. It might fix this bug, but can easily cause others.

What's your alternative? Assigning an xid in the middle of vacuum isn't
ok, breaking vacuum isn't either?