Re: visibility map corruption

On 7/8/21 3:08 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 07:35:58AM +0200, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
>> Thanks for having looked at it.
>>
>> It looks good to me, but i have one question:
>>
>> + printf(_("  -u, --oldest-transaction-id=XID set oldest transaction
>> ID\n"));
>>
>> and
>>
>> + if (!TransactionIdIsNormal(set_oldest_xid))
>> + {
>> + pg_log_error("oldest transaction ID (-u) must be
>> greater or equal to %u", FirstNormalTransactionId);
>> + exit(1);
>> + }
>>
>> I am wondering if we should not keep my original proposal "oldest unfrozen
>> transaction" (as compare to "oldest transaction") in both output to:
>>
>> - make the wording similar with what we can found in StartupXLOG():
>>
>> ereport(DEBUG1,
>> (errmsg_internal("oldest unfrozen transaction ID: %u, in
>> database %u",
>> checkPoint.oldestXid,
>> checkPoint.oldestXidDB)));
>>
>> - give the new "-u" a sense (somehow) from a naming point of view.
>>
>> What do you think?
> I was wondering about that too. We don't use the term "unfrozen" in the
> pg_control output, and only in a few places in our docs. I added the
> word "unfrozen" for the -u doc description in this updated patch
Thanks!
> ---
> not sure how much farther to go in using this term, but I am afraid if I
> use it in the areas you suggested above, it will confuse people who are
> trying to match it to the pg_control output.

Makes sense, thanks for your feedback.

Bertrand