public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Noah Misch <[email protected]>
To: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Cc: John Naylor <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: do only critical work during single-user vacuum?
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2022 15:08:10 -0800
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <CA+TgmoY3m3RimCHifQnxU3YDVV7oYRbRUX4GZ4FuYkhnhe0giA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAFBsxsHp3brGqWu5vU_6d5wfOU5i40c8u3Hg=3TtN4qZwmAecw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAH2-WzkEStBgnk0buJYAKw5jpRYUE+-tuLYn5U+vDyhXNfu+DQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFBsxsFiMPxQ-dHZ8tOgktn=+ffeJT3+GinZ4zdOGbmAnCYadA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAH2-WzkpZcat1YmEVAKpcMBaWRXUd2vGVKHtrBjzBGDL=j6mbA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAH2-WznMo_aEQJJrD1G70RbbWRB9C3gFf3Am6emYrWSTh6wu=w@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFBsxsHMOe=eNG-9nWyGiSXA7QH6ZS3cXCjRqxyasQM6BO3==g@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 02:15:37PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2022-02-19 20:57:57 -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 03:43:12PM +0700, John Naylor wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 6:17 AM Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 9:28 AM Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I did notice from my own testing of the failsafe (by artificially
> > > > > inducing wraparound failure using an XID burning C function) that
> > > > > autovacuum seemed to totally correct the problem, even when the system
> > > > > had already crossed xidStopLimit - it came back on its own. I wasn't
> > > > > completely sure of how robust this effect was, though.
> > >
> > > I'll put some effort in finding any way that it might not be robust.
> >
> > A VACUUM may create a not-trivially-bounded number of multixacts via
> > FreezeMultiXactId(). In a cluster at multiStopLimit, completing VACUUM
> > without error needs preparation something like:
> >
> > 1. Kill each XID that might appear in a multixact.
> > 2. Resolve each prepared transaction that might appear in a multixact.
> > 3. Run VACUUM. At this point, multiStopLimit is blocking new multixacts from
> > other commands, and the lack of running multixact members removes the need
> > for FreezeMultiXactId() to create multixacts.
> >
> > Adding to the badness of single-user mode so well described upthread, one can
> > enter it without doing (2) and then wrap the nextMXact counter.
>
> If we collected the information along the lines of I proposed in the second half of
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20220204013539.qdegpqzvayq3d4y2%40alap3.anarazel.de
> we should be able to handle such cases more intelligently, I think?
>
> We could e.g. add an error if FreezeMultiXactId() needs to create a new
> multixact for a far-in-the-past xid. That's not great, of course, but if we
> include the precise cause (pid of backend / prepared xact name / slot name /
> ...) necessitating creating a new multi, it'd still be a significant
> improvement over the status quo.
Yes, exactly.
view thread (3+ messages)
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: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: do only critical work during single-user vacuum?
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox