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: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 01:31:25 +0200
Message-ID: <20140720233125.GI5974@alap3.anarazel.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <18851.1405897900@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <15685.1405891368@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20140720213258.GD5974@alap3.anarazel.de>
<16274.1405892584@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20140720220253.GE5974@alap3.anarazel.de>
<17255.1405894611@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20140720223010.GF5974@alap3.anarazel.de>
<17935.1405895946@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20140720225653.GG5974@alap3.anarazel.de>
<18673.1405897470@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<18851.1405897900@sss.pgh.pa.us>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-bugs>
On 2014-07-20 19:11:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> >> If any *single* full table vacuum after that calls
> >> vac_update_datfrozenxid() which just needs its datfrozenxid advance by
> >> one we're in trouble: vac_truncate_clog() will be called with minMulti =
> >> GetOldestMultiXactId().
>
> > Uh, no, the cutoff is GetOldestMultiXactId minus
> > vacuum_multixact_freeze_min_age (or the autovac equivalent).
>
> Oh, wait, I see what you're on about: that cutoff doesn't constrain
> the global value computed by vac_truncate_clog. Hmm.
>
> I wonder whether we should change vac_update_relstats so that it only
> applies the "relminxid mustn't go backwards" rule as long as relminxid
> is sane, ie, not in the future. If it is in the future, forcibly update
> it to the cutoff we actually used. Likewise for relminmxid. And I guess
> we'd need a similar rule for updating datmin(m)xid.
I'm wondering the same. How would we do that from a concurreny POV for
the pg_database rows? I think we could just accept the race condition
that two xacts move dbform->datminmxid backwards to different values
since both have to be 'somewhat' correct?
I think this is out of the remit for 9.3.5. At least I don't have the
mental capacity to do this properly till tomorrow afternoon.
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: <20140720233125.GI5974@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