From: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Bugs <pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade < 9.3 -> >=9.3 misses a step around multixacts
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 23:04:08 +0200
Message-ID: <20140720210408.GC5974@alap3.anarazel.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <13210.1405886125@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <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>
<13210.1405886125@sss.pgh.pa.us>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-bugs>
On 2014-07-20 15:55:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > 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.
>
> > He's suggesting copying the last checkpoint's NextMultiXactId into
> > datminmxid/relminmxid, which is surely the wrong thing: that's likely to
> > be newer than all mxids in the tables, not older than them. I thought at
> > first that this was a simple thinko and he meant to write oldestMultiXid,
> > but here's the thing: if we're in the situation where we've got
> > wraparound, isn't oldestMultiXid going to be 1? The value recorded in the
> > checkpoint isn't magic, it's just going to be extracted from whatever's in
> > pg_database; and the whole problem here is that we can't trust that data.
> > Where can we get a useful lower bound from?
>
> Ugh: it's worse than that. pg_upgrade itself is using this utterly
> nonsensical logic to set datminmxid/relminmxid. This is a stop-ship
> issue for 9.3.5.
>
> After some reflection it seems to me that we could estimate oldestmxid for
> a pre-9.3 source cluster as the NextMultiXactId from its pg_control less
> 2000000000 or so. This will nearly always be much older than the actual
> oldest mxid, but that's okay --- the next vacuuming cycle will advance the
> datminmxid/relminmxid values to match reality, so long as they aren't
> wrapped around already.
I think NextMultiXactId should be fine when upgrading from pre 9.3
clusters. Pre 9.3 multis that have been written before a shutdown don't
really have a meaning: To the point that we actually never look at
them. MultiXactIdSetOldestVisible() would have set oldestMXact to
MultiXactState->nextMXact if no backend has any active
ones. GetMultiXactIdMembers et al will deal with that.
So I think for pg_upgrade itself using NextMulti as a replacement for
oldestMXact is fine.
Now that obviously does *not* mean it's safe to do that to after the
cluster has already been running 9.3+.
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
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-bugs@postgresql.org
Cc: andres@2ndquadrant.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, bruce@momjian.us, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade < 9.3 -> >=9.3 misses a step around multixacts
In-Reply-To: <20140720210408.GC5974@alap3.anarazel.de>
* 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