Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 22:02:25 +0200
From: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
 PostgreSQL Bugs <pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade < 9.3 -> >=9.3 misses a step around multixacts
Message-ID: <20140720200225.GA5974@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <20140619014034.GC3806@momjian.us>
 <20140619220425.GQ18688@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org>
 <20140620010653.GS18688@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org>
 <20140620180725.GD29143@momjian.us>
 <20140624201346.GB17110@momjian.us>
 <20140627210520.GP7340@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org>
 <20140701161419.GA16033@momjian.us>
 <20140701190105.GA7340@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org>
 <20140701193047.GB16033@momjian.us> <9879.1405877821@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9879.1405877821@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-bugs-owner@postgresql.org

On 2014-07-20 13:37:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > On Tue, Jul  1, 2014 at 03:01:06PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> Finally, there is the question of what to do if the database has already
> >> been upgraded and thus the tables are all at relminmxid=1.  As far as I
> >> can tell, if the original value of nextMulti was below 2^31, there
> >> should be no issue because vacuuming would advance the value normally.
> >> If the original value was beyond that point, then vacuum would have been
> >> bleating all along about the wraparound point.  In this case, I think it
> >> should be enough the UPDATE the pg_class values to the current
> >> oldestMulti value from pg_control, but I haven't tested this.
> 
> > Well, we are already having users run a query for the 9.3.X minor
> > version upgrade to optionally remove the 0000 file.  Is there something
> > else they should run to test for this?  We certainly could check for
> > files >= 8000, but I am not sure that is sufficient.  We would then need
> > them to somehow update all the database/relation minmxid fields, and I
> > am not even sure what value we should set it to.  Is that something we
> > want to publish?
> 
> I started transcribing Bruce's proposed fix procedure at
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/20140702pg_upgrade_fix
> into the release notes, but I'm afraid it's all wet.

I don't understand why we should do anything but remove the 0000 file if
it's all zeroes? This seems far too complicated. Beside the fact that I
doubt it's actually achieving anything reliably?

> I'm a bit inclined to not say anything about fix procedures in the release
> notes, because I'm not sure that this is a problem in the field.  If
> anybody did have a wraparound they'd be getting bleats from VACUUM, and no
> one has reported any such thing that I've heard.

There actually have been a couple reports about the general problem I
think - reacting to one was how I noticed the bug. 

Greetings,

Andres Freund

-- 
 Andres Freund	                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs