From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.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: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 18:34:49 -0400
Message-ID: <20140722223449.GD1563@momjian.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140722141401.GC4190@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <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>
<20140722130931.GA1563@momjian.us>
<20140722141401.GC4190@alap3.anarazel.de>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-bugs>
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 04:14:01PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-07-22 09:09:31 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 11:19:30PM -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.
> >
> > Should we conclude that the multi-xact code is hopelessly complex and
> > needs a redesign?
>
> That might be true, but I don't see the above as evidence of it. It's a
> nontrivial workaround for a bug; it's not surprising that it needs a
> couple iterations to make sense. Without the pg_upgrade bug there'd be
> no need to make those adjustments.
Well, my point is that even Tom was confused about how things should be
handled. Anyway, seems no one thinks a redesign is needed, but I had to
ask.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
--
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: bruce@momjian.us, andres@2ndquadrant.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade < 9.3 -> >=9.3 misses a step around multixacts
In-Reply-To: <20140722223449.GD1563@momjian.us>
* 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