Re: Eliminate redundant tuple visibility check in vacuum

Hi,

On 2023-09-28 11:25:04 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I went ahead and committed 0001. If Andres still wants to push for
> more renaming there, that can be a follow-up patch.

Agreed.

> And we can see if he or anyone else has any comments on this new version of
> 0002. To me we're down into the level of details that probably don't matter
> very much one way or the other, but others may disagree.

The only thought I have is that it might be worth to amend the comment in
lazy_scan_prune() to mention that such a tuple won't need to be frozen,
because it was visible to another session when vacuum started.

Greetings,

Andres Freund