On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 1:25 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 6:26 AM Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coe...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> Thanks for reporting. I'm able to reproduce the issue by creating some > >> delay just before "-- now create an unused line pointer" and use the > >> delay to start a new session either with repeatable read or > >> serializable transaction isolation level and run some query on the > >> test table. To fix this, as you suggested I've converted the test > >> table to the temp table. Attached is the patch with the changes. > >> Please have a look and let me know about any concerns. > > > Tom, do you have any concerns about this fix? > > It seems OK as far as it goes. Two thoughts: > > * Do we need a comment in the test pointing out that the table must be > temp to ensure that we get stable vacuum results? Or will the commit > log message be enough documentation? >
I'll add a note for this. > * Should any of the other tables in the test be converted to temp? > I see that the other test cases are kluging around related issues > by dint of never committing their tables at all. It's not clear > to me how badly those test cases have been distorted by that, or > whether it means they're testing less-than-typical situations. > Are you trying to say that we can achieve the things being done in test-case 1 and 2 by having a single temp table and we should aim for it because it will make the test-case more efficient and easy to maintain? If so, I will try to do the necessary changes and submit a new patch for it. please confirm. Thanks, -- With Regards, Ashutosh Sharma EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com