MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CANtu0oiLc-+7h9zfzOVy2cv2UuYk_5MUReVLnVbOay6OgD_KGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEze2WgW6pj48xJhG_YLUE1QS+n9Yv0AZQwaWeb-r+X=HAxU_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANtu0oizNtPUrPB0Mh+2vyjdijTX=LZvO5_dZN3+NqvE-CFPtw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEze2Wi3BFLkFBcZ+Brfbr-mGBCcWXcWuHucnCnw5ZOQotc6Eg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANtu0ojRX=osoiXL9JJG6g6qOowXVbVYX+mDsN+2jmFVe=eG7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEze2Wg03Ps_StwEhgCdSn7VXY9ZUM=zCrf-m1dRZpTWv6wD_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANtu0oj66JjAq8xyRSeO=MuRHYS2XsYbhHRRESHtOcLJs=3+Sw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANtu0ogT2Qn7-q_jK6+DqBQvFoTt69eQJDKxJARXV9pdWjd0Gg@mail.gmail.com> <CANtu0ogXgNkEuxbDRwznAZpxEXRmj3NzOen3y-RGHDwig0YBRw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANtu0ogXgNkEuxbDRwznAZpxEXRmj3NzOen3y-RGHDwig0YBRw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michail Nikolaev <michail.nikolaev@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2023 15:12:41 +0100
Message-ID: <CANtu0oi+FTMqDb+6Bv8w7VHiTFVMB1uAAip_P841WQH+ktPixw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Revisiting {CREATE INDEX, REINDEX} CONCURRENTLY improvements
To: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CANtu0oi%2BFTMqDb%2B6Bv8w7VHiTFVMB1uAAip_P841WQH%2BktPixw%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hello!

It seems like the idea of "old" snapshot is still a valid one.

> Should this deal with any potential XID wraparound, too?

As far as I understand in our case, we are not affected by this in any way.
Vacuum in our table is not possible because of locking, so, nothing
may be frozen (see below).
In the case of super long index building, transactional limits will
stop new connections using current
regular infrastructure because it is based on relation data (but not
actual xmin of backends).

> How does this behave when the newly inserted tuple's xmin gets frozen?
> This would be allowed to happen during heap page pruning, afaik - no
> rules that I know of which are against that - but it would create
> issues where normal snapshot visibility rules would indicate it
> visible to both snapshots regardless of whether it actually was
> visible to the older snapshot when that snapshot was created...

As I can see, heap_page_prune never freezes any tuples.
In the case of regular vacuum, it used this way: call heap_page_prune
and then call heap_prepare_freeze_tuple and then
heap_freeze_execute_prepared.

Merry Christmas,
Mikhail.