Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 01:49:25 +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: <20140720234925.GJ5974@alap3.anarazel.de>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <19458.1405899435@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-bugs-owner@postgresql.org

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