Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E45821337B8C for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 04:50:11 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 36295-04 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:50:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from b.mail.sonic.net (b.mail.sonic.net [64.142.19.5]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D6521337B93 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 04:50:00 -0400 (AST) Received: from newshell.sonic.net (bolt.sonic.net [208.201.242.19]) by b.mail.sonic.net (8.13.8.Beta0-Sonic/8.13.7) with ESMTP id p288nvIk027734 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 8 Mar 2011 00:49:57 -0800 Received: from bolt.sonic.net (IDENT:FqsaVZf4HsDqXN3hZh8vnV4iyiRt044b@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by newshell.sonic.net (8.13.6/8.12.1) with ESMTP id p288nvhI008426; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 00:49:57 -0800 Received: (from daveg@localhost) by bolt.sonic.net (8.13.6/8.12.1/Submit) id p288nutR008425; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 00:49:56 -0800 Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 00:49:56 -0800 From: daveg To: Heikki Linnakangas Cc: PostgreSQL-development , Greg Stark Subject: Re: Re: PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag was incorrectly set happend during repeatable vacuum Message-ID: <20110308084956.GE21941@sonic.net> References: <20110303071208.GA4053@sonic.net> <4D6F4E5D.6080507@enterprisedb.com> <20110304090031.GE4053@sonic.net> <4D710ABD.5090103@enterprisedb.com> <20110307235340.GA21941@sonic.net> <4D75E201.20402@enterprisedb.com> <4D75EAC4.7090008@enterprisedb.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D75EAC4.7090008@enterprisedb.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.91 tagged_above=-5 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201103/538 X-Sequence-Number: 183788 On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 10:37:24AM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 08.03.2011 10:00, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >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. > > This is probably a better idea at least in back-branches. It also > handles the case of twiddling vacuum_defer_cleanup_age, which tracking > two xmins per transactions would not handle. > > Here's a patch. I also changed the warning per Robert's suggestion. > Anyone see a hole in this? It would be helpful to have the dbname and schema in the message in addition to the relname. I added those to the original diagnostic patch as it was not clear that the messages were all related to the same page/table/dg. Also, in your comment you might mention that multiple databases are one way we could see oldestxmin move backwards. -dg -- David Gould daveg@sonic.net 510 536 1443 510 282 0869 If simplicity worked, the world would be overrun with insects.