On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 11:58 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> > I think I understand what the first paragraph of the header comment
> > for heap_tuple_needs_freeze() is trying to say, but the second one is
> > quite confusing. I think this is again because it veers into talking
> > about what the caller should do rather than explaining what the
> > function itself does.
>
> I wouldn't have done it that way if the function wasn't called
> heap_tuple_needs_freeze().
>
> I would be okay with removing this paragraph if the function was
> renamed to reflect the fact it now tells the caller something about
> the tuple having an old XID/MXID relative to the caller's own XID/MXID
> cutoffs. Maybe the function name should be heap_tuple_would_freeze(),
> making it clear that the function merely tells caller what
> heap_prepare_freeze_tuple() *would* do, without presuming to tell the
> vacuumlazy.c caller what it *should* do about any of the information
> it is provided.
Attached is v13, which does it that way. This does seem like a real
increase in clarity, albeit one that comes at the cost of renaming
heap_tuple_needs_freeze().
v13 also addresses all of the other items from Robert's most recent
round of feedback.
I would like to commit something close to v13 on Friday or Saturday.
Thanks
--
Peter Geoghegan