From: daveg <daveg@sonic.net>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Re: PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag was incorrectly set happend during repeatable vacuum
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 00:38:08 -0800
Message-ID: <20110308083808.GD21941@sonic.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4D75E201.20402@enterprisedb.com>
References: <1B3CCBDD-4AC6-404A-9E26-DB4CA2554228@endpoint.com>
<AANLkTi=xq4SV6jwA7txvrbEWocyeiU6XiTG=-zVy+7Dq@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=Ye7AoF7_uVQfPVn-ok2VOp65mi0xU3H7kCke3@mail.gmail.com>
<20110303071208.GA4053@sonic.net>
<4D6F4E5D.6080507@enterprisedb.com>
<20110304090031.GE4053@sonic.net>
<4D710ABD.5090103@enterprisedb.com>
<20110307235340.GA21941@sonic.net>
<AANLkTi=54GF1MJN3FSXL2gr9xG_aB09y_taT8daUwz4Z@mail.gmail.com>
<4D75E201.20402@enterprisedb.com>
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 10:00:01AM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 08.03.2011 04:07, Greg Stark wrote:
> >Well from that log you definitely have OldestXmin going backwards. And
> >not by a little bit either. at 6:33 it set the all_visible flag and
> >then at 7:01 it was almost 1.3 million transactions earlier. In fact
> >to precisely the same value that was in use for a transaction at 1:38.
> >That seems like a bit of a coincidence though it's not repeated
> >earlier.
>
> Yep. After staring at GetOldestXmin() again, it finally struck me how
> OldestXmin can move backwards. You need two databases for it, which
> probably explains why this has been so elusive.
...
> What there are no other transactions active in the same database,
> GetOldestXmin() returns just latestCompletedXid. When you open a
> transaction in the same database after that, its xid will be above
> latestCompletedXid, but its xmin includes transactions from all
> databases, and there might be a transaction in some other database with
> an xid that precedes the value that GetOldestXmin() returned earlier.
>
> I'm not sure what to do about that. One idea is track two xmin values in
> proc-array, one that includes transactions in all databases, and another
> that only includes transactions in the same database. GetOldestXmin()
> (when allDbs is false) would only pay attention to the latter. It would
> add a few instructions to GetSnapshotData(), though.
>
> Another idea is to give up on the warning when it appears that
> oldestxmin has moved backwards, and assume that it's actually fine. We
> could still warn in other cases where the flag appears to be incorrectly
> set, like if there is a deleted tuple on the page.
I read this to mean that it is safe to ignore this warning and that these
databases are not at risk for data corruption or wrong results so long as
the warning is due to oldestxmin. Please correct me if I have misunderstood.
Thanks
-dg
--
David Gould daveg@sonic.net 510 536 1443 510 282 0869
If simplicity worked, the world would be overrun with insects.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Cc: daveg@sonic.net, heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com, gsstark@mit.edu, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Re: PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag was incorrectly set happend during repeatable vacuum
In-Reply-To: <20110308083808.GD21941@sonic.net>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox