Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 12:37:40 -0700
From: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
To: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>
Cc: Bowen Shi <zxwsbg12138@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
	Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>,
	Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>,
	Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: relfrozenxid may disagree with row XIDs after 1ccc1e05ae
Message-ID: <20240625193740.dc.nmisch@google.com>
References: <20240415185233.65x57tbdybj4kqbg@awork3.anarazel.de>
 <CAAKRu_bwBN=0Zv-rz4sDCg1J_WYneZpo5b9P4jRvCy=dguVbbw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAKRu_aUJ-yWy67QnytdNmvKjsAyZtVgnQpsdi-3hk_SbTL3Mg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAKRu_bXH2g_pchG7rN_4fs-_6_kVbbJ97gYRoN0Zdb9P04Wag@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240518222311.6b@rfd.leadboat.com>
 <CAAKRu_bCimXFX5aDr2wc1Z_6jbBdsO8u4f6w8s1J71+DvSnJRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240520204818.42.nmisch@google.com>
 <CAAKRu_YZeaS92OY02xFpgsgyLpEZaQ4DA5-s9GX97pp208ex7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAKRu_aRuS-twZkrK1bY59H_9NMHWOdg8BnSofo6pfNowv9_Jw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAKRu_Y_NJzF4-8gzTTeaOuUL3CcGoXPjXcAHbTTygT8AyVqag@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAAKRu_Y_NJzF4-8gzTTeaOuUL3CcGoXPjXcAHbTTygT8AyVqag@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.12 (2023-09-09)
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20240625193740.dc.nmisch%40google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 11:49:50AM -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 6:51 PM Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I ended up manually backporting the logic from 1ccc1e05ae as opposed
> > to cherry-picking because it relied on a struct introduced in
> > 4e9fc3a9762065.

> Attached is the backport and repros for 15 and 16.

> When this happends, a tuple with an xmax older than OldestXmin but newer

s/happends/happens/

> @@ -700,7 +707,7 @@ heap_prune_chain(Buffer buffer, OffsetNumber rootoffnum, PruneState *prstate)
>  			break;
>  
>  		Assert(ItemIdIsNormal(lp));
> -		Assert(prstate->htsv[offnum] != -1);
> +		Assert(htsv[offnum] != -1);

The master patch removed this assert instead.  Is the back branch non-removal
deliberate?  If so, the patch is ready.  I also confirm your results from your
repro recipe; thanks for including that.