Re: BUG #10911: pg_upgrade appears to lose the transaction id epoch

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: gregburek(at)heroku(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #10911: pg_upgrade appears to lose the transaction id epoch
Date: 2014-07-08 22:48:28
Message-ID: 20140708224828.GA1697@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 09:17:05PM +0000, gregburek(at)heroku(dot)com wrote:
> The following bug has been logged on the website:
>
> Bug reference: 10911
> Logged by: Greg Burek
> Email address: gregburek(at)heroku(dot)com
> PostgreSQL version: 9.0.17
> Operating system: Ubuntu Linux
> Description:
>
> When upgrading a 9.0.17 db to 9.3.4 via pg_upgrade, the transaction ids
> appear to fall backward in time:
>
> >From before the upgrade:
> => SELECT txid_snapshot_xmax(txid_current_snapshot());
> txid_snapshot_xmax
> --------------------
> 66329538555
> (1 row)
>
> After the upgrade:
>
> => SELECT txid_snapshot_xmax(txid_current_snapshot());
> txid_snapshot_xmax
> --------------------
> 1905029395
> (1 row)
>
> Looking at pg_control before the upgrade:
> $ pg_controldata /database/ | grep -i nextxid
> Latest checkpoint's NextXID: 15/1905728256
>
> After the upgrade:
> $ pg_controldata /database/ | grep -i nextxid
> Latest checkpoint's NextXID: 0/1905029398
>
>
> This is an unexpected loss of the higher order bits when the upgrade is
> performed. Is it possible to preserve the epoch across the upgrade?

Yes, this was reported in April 2014:

http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJ2ymdgTEQ8AETJnQUeEuGjk-OGPWQn_MXgEY5urJpXbJNcohg@mail.gmail.com

I will try to fix it for 9.5, due in 2015.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2014-07-08 23:46:24 Re: BUG #10911: pg_upgrade appears to lose the transaction id epoch
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-07-08 21:40:00 Re: LEFT JOINs not optimized away when not needed