From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade < 9.3 -> >=9.3 misses a step around multixacts |
Date: | 2014-07-21 16:43:24 |
Message-ID: | 4182.1405961004@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> I'm not wondering so much about vac_update_relstats(). There indeed the
> calls aren't new and the worst that can happen is a slightly older
> freeze limit. I'm more wondering about vac_update_datfrozenxid(). Afaics
> we very well could hit
> newFrozenXid = lastSaneFrozenXid = GetOldestXmin(NULL, true);
> newMinMulti = lastSaneMinMulti = GetOldestMultiXactId();
> for a relation that has just been vacuumed by another backend.
Hmm ... I see. The issue is not what the computed minimum datfrozenxid
etc should be; it's right to err in the backwards direction there.
It's whether we want to declare that the calculation is bogus and abandon
truncation if another session manages to sneak in a very-new relfrozenxid.
Yeah, you're right, we need to be conservative about doing that. I'd
wanted to avoid extra calls here but I guess we have to do them after all.
Will fix.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-07-21 16:48:57 | Re: pg_upgrade < 9.3 -> >=9.3 misses a step around multixacts |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-07-21 16:34:09 | Re: pg_upgrade < 9.3 -> >=9.3 misses a step around multixacts |