From: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
To: robertmhaas@gmail.com
To: melanieplageman@gmail.com
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Subject: relfrozenxid may disagree with row XIDs after 1ccc1e05ae
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2024 16:07:17 -0800
Message-ID: <20240304000717.1e@rfd.leadboat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240106224448.c7@rfd.leadboat.com>
References: <17257-1e46de26bec11433@postgresql.org>
<d5d5af5d-ba46-aff3-9f91-776c70246cc3@gmail.com>
<CAH2-WzknORjSVufsDQKr7VVnXspRhdsjKBh8brwHEkrUpqVXjg@mail.gmail.com>
<20231225024402.77@rfd.leadboat.com>
<CAH2-Wz=X88igoxQvAGW2cFrTsEXK+VJJHap=90-z=juD5DqYdw@mail.gmail.com>
<20240106202413.e5@rfd.leadboat.com>
<CAH2-WzkCOh3r-qpS16-TXFg6kzeg12qawJSTTHtNMavtXXG-sg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAH2-Wz=HT+zHGyQ5bykPEh20KQWnS4uZS_uupxrTrtf-Wt886A@mail.gmail.com>
<20240106224448.c7@rfd.leadboat.com>
On Sat, Jan 06, 2024 at 02:44:48PM -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 06, 2024 at 01:30:40PM -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 6, 2024 at 12:24 PM Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> > > Fair enough. While I agree there's a decent chance back-patching would be
> > > okay, I think there's also a decent chance that 1ccc1e05ae creates the problem
> > > Matthias theorized. Something like: we update relfrozenxid based on
> > > OldestXmin, even though GlobalVisState caused us to retain a tuple older than
> > > OldestXmin. Then relfrozenxid disagrees with table contents.
I figure Matthias's upthread theory is more likely than not to hold. If it
does hold, commit 1ccc1e05ae created a new corruption route. Hence, I'm
adding a v17 open item for commit 1ccc1e05ae.
> > Either every relevant code path has the same OldestXmin to work off
> > of, or the whole NewRelfrozenXid/relfrozenxid-tracking thing can't be
> > expected to work as designed. I find it a bit odd that
> > pruneheap.c/GlobalVisState has no direct understanding of this
> > dependency (none that I can discern, at least). Wouldn't it at least
> > be more natural if pruneheap.c could access OldestXmin when run inside
> > VACUUM? (Could just be used by defensive hardening code.)
>
> Tied to that decision is the choice of semantics when the xmin horizon moves
> backward during one VACUUM, e.g. when a new walsender xmin does so. Options:
>
> 1. Continue to remove tuples based on the OldestXmin from VACUUM's start. We
> could have already removed some of those tuples, so the walsender xmin
> won't achieve a guarantee anyway. (VACUUM would want ratchet-like behavior
> in GlobalVisState, possibly by sharing OldestXmin with pruneheap like you
> say.)
>
> 2. Move OldestXmin backward, to reflect the latest xmin horizon. (Perhaps
> VACUUM would just pass GlobalVisState to a function that returns the
> compatible OldestXmin.)
>
> Which way is better?
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: noah@leadboat.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, melanieplageman@gmail.com, pg@bowt.ie, boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com, exclusion@gmail.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org, andres@anarazel.de
Subject: Re: relfrozenxid may disagree with row XIDs after 1ccc1e05ae
In-Reply-To: <20240304000717.1e@rfd.leadboat.com>
* 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