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

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz@postgresql.org>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Cc: Shruthi Gowda <gowdashru@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2022 19:19:41 -0400
Message-ID: <3260692.1659568781@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ddf43511-32fd-fc22-1b36-8e6c733a55b0@postgresql.org>
References: <20220730054401.GB3644221@rfd.leadboat.com>
	<351616.1659192034@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<635c8809-3525-7dae-a1a1-0d9069cd86bc@postgresql.org>
	<2657259.1659460333@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CA+TgmoastyZUAmJ6t953=yycQxu_S0x6A08QVARsbOVAWW=D2A@mail.gmail.com>
	<c07d096c-a67a-9fb9-2001-7a97b36aa5a7@postgresql.org>
	<2686054.1659469199@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<98286e9b-8fe6-554e-c23f-d67a3df2c30d@postgresql.org>
	<2687956.1659469881@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CA+TgmoYqSrO-dSP6up31gv5F+1-zM-5exjKw2BU6w+FtzAzNhA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20220803202014.77m6z5m7v525p2b4@awork3.anarazel.de>
	<CA+TgmoYJaHNBghqALt-9FonK8FRB96m_MSNr9ev5EBto-2oMYw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3128525.1659559617@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CAH2-WzkmNN0kwPBO8t=waOCikWM4KLX9fWEYyt2oyWP08u3mSg@mail.gmail.com>
	<ddf43511-32fd-fc22-1b36-8e6c733a55b0@postgresql.org>

"Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org> writes:
> I did rule out wanting to do the "xid + $X" check after reviewing some 
> of the output. I think that both $X could end up varying, and it really 
> feels like a bandaid.

It is that.  I wouldn't feel comfortable with $X less than 100 or so,
which is probably sloppy enough to draw Robert's ire.  Still, realizing
that what we want right now is a band-aid for 15beta3, I don't think
it's an unreasonable short-term option.

> Andres suggested upthread using "txid_current()" -- for the comparison, 
> that's one thing I looked at. Would any of the XID info from 
> "pg_control_checkpoint()" also serve for this test?

I like the idea of txid_current(), but we have no comparable
function for mxid do we?  While you could get both numbers from
pg_control_checkpoint(), I doubt that's sufficiently up-to-date.

			regards, tom lane





view thread (97+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <3260692.1659568781@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../3260692.1659568781@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/3260692.1659568781@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

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-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, jkatz@postgresql.org, pg@bowt.ie, robertmhaas@gmail.com, andres@anarazel.de, noah@leadboat.com, andrew@dunslane.net, bruce@momjian.us, michael@paquier.xyz, pryzby@telsasoft.com, gowdashru@gmail.com
  Subject: Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade
  In-Reply-To: <3260692.1659568781@sss.pgh.pa.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