Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 11:30:13 -0500
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: shihao zhong <zhong950419@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Fixes inconsistent behavior in vacuum when it processes multiple
 relations
Message-ID: <aFrSlSz9fi47j5Sr@nathan>
References: 
 <CAGRkXqTo+aK=GTy5pSc-9cy8H2F2TJvcrZ-zXEiNJj93np1UUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <aFLp9sMEHFHULOFx@nathan>
 <CAGRkXqTp9k_7X1OqqQSnVfoyGxAM3SQ083CcyaezBg9qQ8i+qg@mail.gmail.com>
 <aFRzYhOTZcRgKPLu@nathan>
 <aFS6m1tNH2sGMQ61@paquier.xyz>
 <aFWznvZtYZ3VJxgi@nathan>
 <aFiWUzW8VChL-hGg@paquier.xyz>
 <aFl1AB9ofnQrrckV@nathan>
 <aFn82kXgvwKHncs-@paquier.xyz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <aFn82kXgvwKHncs-@paquier.xyz>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aFrSlSz9fi47j5Sr%40nathan>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 10:18:18AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Knowing that I'm indirectly responsible for this mess, I would like to
> take care of that myself.  Would that be OK for you?

I would be grateful if you took care of it.

> Another approach that we could use is an injection point with some
> LOGs that show some information based on what VacuumParams holds.
> That would be the cheapest method (no need for any data), and entirely
> stable as we would look at the stack.  Perhaps going down to that is
> not really necessary for the sake of this thread.

+1 for this.  I did something similar to verify the other bugs I reported,
and this seems far easier to maintain than potentially-unstable tests that
require lots of setup and that depend on secondary effects.

-- 
nathan