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 18:12:22 +0200
Message-ID: <20140721161222.GA17049@alap3.anarazel.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <26504.1405912770@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <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>
<20140720234925.GJ5974@alap3.anarazel.de>
<22178.1405903964@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<26504.1405912770@sss.pgh.pa.us>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-bugs>
On 2014-07-20 23:19:30 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Here's a draft patch for this. I think this will fix all cases where
> > the "1" minmxid inserted by previous pg_upgrade versions is actually
> > in the future at the time we run VACUUM. We would still be at risk if
> > it had been in the future when pg_upgrade ran but no longer is now,
> > since that would mean there could be non-lock-only mxids on disk that
> > are older than "1". However, for the reasons discussed upthread, it
> > seems fairly unlikely to me that people would actually get burnt in
> > practice, so I'm satisfied with doing this much and no more.
>
> Ah, belay that: as coded, that would allow truncation of clog/multixact
> as soon as any one relation in any one database had sane
> frozenxid/minmxid. If we want to have any pretense of being safe, we have
> to postpone truncation until *all* relations have been vacuumed. So more
> like the attached, instead.
Looks basically good to me. Two minor things:
1) How about adding a elog(WARNING, "relation %u has invalid freeze
limits", ...) to vac_update_datfrozenxid()? Otherwise it's a bit hard
to understand what's going on. I wouldn't want to invest too much effort
into the precision of the message, but some log bleat seems justified.
2) From a pedantic POV lastSane* should be initialized to
ReadNewTransactionId()/ReadNextMultiXactId(). On a busy system we could
otherwise consider concurrently updated values as being too new if some
longrunning transaction finishes. Also GetOldestXmin() can sometimes go
backwards...
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: <20140721161222.GA17049@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