Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Wd2CY-0000JH-TQ for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:47:23 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Wd2CY-0007Qy-E0 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:47:22 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:7903:4::125]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Wd2CW-0007Qo-Pd for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:47:20 +0000 Received: from momjian.us ([72.94.173.45]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Wd2CT-0000gR-Nh for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:47:20 +0000 Received: from bruce by momjian.us with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Wd2CS-0005s9-Ht; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:47:16 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:47:16 -0400 From: Bruce Momjian To: Alvaro Herrera Cc: Andres Freund , Stephen Frost , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: MultiXactId error after upgrade to 9.3.4 Message-ID: <20140423184716.GA22722@momjian.us> References: <20140330040029.GY4582@tamriel.snowman.net> <20140330141135.GA4582@tamriel.snowman.net> <20140330185349.GD4582@tamriel.snowman.net> <20140331115452.GT9567@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org> <20140331115713.GA18358@alap3.anarazel.de> <20140423180102.GP25695@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org> <20140423182804.GA21458@momjian.us> <20140423184214.GQ25695@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140423184214.GQ25695@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 03:42:14PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > I still don't know under what circumstances this situation could arise. > > > This seems most strange to me. I would wonder about this to be just > > > papering over a different bug elsewhere, except that we know this tuple > > > comes from a pg_upgraded table and so I think the only real solution is > > > to cope. > > > > Shouldn't we log something at least if we are unsure of the cause? > > I don't know. Is it possible that XMAX_IS_MULTI got set because of > cosmic rays? At this point that's the only explanation that makes sense > to me. And I'm not sure what to do about this until we know more -- > more user reports of this problem, for instance. > > I don't see any reasonable way to distinguish this particular kind of > multixact-out-of-bounds situation from any other, so not sure what else > to log either (you can see that we already emit an error message.) I guess I am lost then. I thought it supressed the error. What does the patch do? -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers