Re: MultiXactId error after upgrade to 9.3.4
От | Alvaro Herrera |
---|---|
Тема | Re: MultiXactId error after upgrade to 9.3.4 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20160617033122.GA106332@alvherre.pgsql обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: MultiXactId error after upgrade to 9.3.4 (Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk>) |
Ответы |
Re: MultiXactId error after upgrade to 9.3.4
Re: MultiXactId error after upgrade to 9.3.4 Re: MultiXactId error after upgrade to 9.3.4 |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Gierth wrote: > But that leaves an obvious third issue: it's all very well to ignore the > pre-upgrade (pre-9.3) mxid if it's older than the cutoff or it's in the > future, but what if it's actually inside the currently valid range? > Looking it up as though it were a valid mxid in that case seems to be > completely wrong and could introduce more subtle errors. You're right, we should not try to resolve a multixact coming from the old install in any case. > (It can, AFAICT, be inside the currently valid range due to wraparound, > i.e. without there being a valid pg_multixact entry for it, because > AFAICT in 9.2, once the mxid is hinted dead it is never again either > looked up or cleared, so it can sit in the tuple xmax forever, even > through multiple wraparounds.) HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum removes very old multixacts; see the HEAP_IS_LOCKED block starting in line 1162 where we set HEAP_XMAX_INVALID for multixacts that are not running by falling through. It's not a strict guarantee but this probably explains why this problem is not more common. > Why is the correct rule not "check for and ignore pre-upgrade mxids > before even trying to fetch members"? I propose something like the attached patch, which implements that idea. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: