pg.ddx.io  pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: Bowen Shi <zxwsbg12138@gmail.com>
Cc: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Cc: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: relfrozenxid may disagree with row XIDs after 1ccc1e05ae
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 12:39:53 -0700
Message-ID: <20240516193953.zdj545efq6vabymd@awork3.anarazel.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAH2-WzmO-GPN8kpSCWzkq27FRk8xCBoDKJcMqVTYC+Dt8s4ZDQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAKRu_bzcKmb1G4wY2AezsDbZ5QZubmrjrKgkPdbu_L6k6uUdQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAM_vCuc=S=djaSyVUQDDJ7fmxQqVr4dB-iv2mdNMSWA=GRb6Dg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAKRu_bioPMfwpA2zgK=eNq402YsvTCrxfQ_o0PvCBejFsTu=A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAM_vCufYfYxHdFD=1zNjcAzg-cehcUqpWkyQP-s8paPUvVEzqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAKRu_YzDyVD4aRgKjpeQRx8b6FRjCNJh=N-0+0NZ5Qv55QFdQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAM_vCue-t1SsNYj=rz6CN1Seu+i7buCGFEvams4JTk5RjKf+kw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20240516033308.tu3urchutxy754bp@awork3.anarazel.de>
	<CAM_vCufYQR--cmSiBS-sL-vfFvE7xtFLDx7PARe=eYWDXzN2xg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20240516163810.t3oom62dxxmth7cg@awork3.anarazel.de>
	<CAH2-WzmO-GPN8kpSCWzkq27FRk8xCBoDKJcMqVTYC+Dt8s4ZDQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On 2024-05-16 12:49:00 -0400, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 12:38 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > I'm wondering if there was index processing, due to the number of tuples. And
> > if so, what type of indexes. There'd need to be something that could lead to
> > new snapshots being acquired...
> 
> Did you ever see this theory of mine, about B-Tree page deletion +
> recycling? See:
> 
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAH2-Wz%3DzLcnZO8MqPXQLqOLY%3DCAwQhdvs5Ncg6qMb5nMAam0EA%4...
> 
> (And related nearby emails from me.)

> It looked very much like index vacuuming was involved in some way when
> I actually had the opportunity to use gdb against an affected
> production instance that ran into the problem.

Hm, were the cases you observed that way using parallel vacuuming? And what
index types were involved?

Melanies reproducer works because there are catalog accesses that can trigger
a recomputation of fuzzy horizon. For testing the "easy" window for that is
the vac_open_indexes() < 16, because it happens after determining the horizon,
but before actually vacuuming.

Now I wonder if there is some codepath triggering catalog lookups during bulk
delete.

Greetings,

Andres Freund





view thread (62+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <20240516193953.zdj545efq6vabymd@awork3.anarazel.de>
Permalink:  ../20240516193953.zdj545efq6vabymd@awork3.anarazel.de/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/20240516193953.zdj545efq6vabymd@awork3.anarazel.de

 · 

reply
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@anarazel.de, pg@bowt.ie, zxwsbg12138@gmail.com, melanieplageman@gmail.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com, noah@leadboat.com, exclusion@gmail.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
  Subject: Re: relfrozenxid may disagree with row XIDs after 1ccc1e05ae
  In-Reply-To: <20240516193953.zdj545efq6vabymd@awork3.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