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 01:49:25 +0200
Message-ID: <20140720234925.GJ5974@alap3.anarazel.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <19458.1405899435@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <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>
<20140720233125.GI5974@alap3.anarazel.de>
<19458.1405899435@sss.pgh.pa.us>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-bugs>
On 2014-07-20 19:37:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > On 2014-07-20 19:11:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> 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?
>
> Seems no worse than it is today.
Well, right now it can only advance, never go backwards. I think. But it
don't see how it could matter - all the possible minimum values better
be correct.
> Is it even possible for two xacts to be trying to update that at the
> same time?
At least I don't see anything prohibiting it. vac_update_datfrozenxid()(
is called straight from vacuum()/do_autovacuum(). The only thing that'll
serialize that I can see is the buffer lock for the heap_inplace_update().
Seems odd from a concurrency perspective. Worth a look someday not too
far away.
> > 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.
>
> Doesn't sound that hard to me (and I'm still reasonably awake, which
> I bet you're not).
I'm most definitely not awake, right ;). Especially as it's 32 °C in my
flat - at 2 in the morning...
> Will take a look.
Cool. Will take a look at the result tomorrow.
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: <20140720234925.GJ5974@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