On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 04:20:19PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> writes: >> I think the main difference between your patch and mine is that I've >> exposed vac_update_datfrozenxid() via a function instead of a VACUUM >> option. IMHO that feels a little more natural, but I can't say I feel too >> strongly about it. > > I thought about that but it seems fairly unsafe, because that means > that vac_update_datfrozenxid is executing inside a user-controlled > transaction. I don't think it will hurt us if the user does a > ROLLBACK afterward --- but if he sits on the open transaction, > that would be bad, if only because we're still holding the > LockDatabaseFrozenIds lock which will block other VACUUMs. > There might be more hazards besides that; certainly no one has ever > tried to run vac_update_datfrozenxid that way before.
That's a good point. -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
