Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

RE: Transaction ID wraparound: problem and proposed solution

From: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
To: "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: RE: Transaction ID wraparound: problem and proposed solution
Date: 2000-11-04 00:24:38
Message-ID: 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A234D3146@sectorbase1.sectorbase.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> This comparison will work as long as the range of interesting XIDs
> never exceeds WRAPLIMIT/2.  Essentially, we envision the actual value
> of XID as being the low-order bits of a logical XID that always
> increases, and we assume that no extant XID is more than WRAPLIMIT/2
> transactions old, so we needn't keep track of the high-order bits.

So, we'll have to abort some long running transaction.
And before after-wrap XIDs will be close to aborted xid you'd better
ensure that vacuum *successfully* run over all tables in database
(and shared tables) aborted transaction could touch.

> This scheme allows us to survive XID wraparound at the cost of slight
> additional complexity in ordered comparisons of XIDs (which is not a
> really performance-critical task AFAIK), and at the cost that the
> original insertion XIDs of all but recent tuples will be lost by
> VACUUM.  The system doesn't particularly care about that, but old XIDs
> do sometimes come in handy for debugging purposes.  A possible

I wouldn't care about this.

> compromise is to overwrite only XIDs that are older than, say,
> WRAPLIMIT/4 instead of doing so as soon as possible.  This would mean
> the required VACUUM frequency is every WRAPLIMIT/4 xacts instead of
> every WRAPLIMIT/2 xacts.
> 
> We have a straightforward tradeoff between the maximum size of pg_log
> (WRAPLIMIT/4 bytes) and the required frequency of VACUUM (at least

Required frequency of *successful* vacuum over *all* tables.
We would have to remember something in pg_class/pg_database
and somehow force vacuum over "too-long-unvacuumed-tables"
*automatically*.

> every WRAPLIMIT/2 or WRAPLIMIT/4 transactions).  This could be made
> configurable in config.h for those who're intent on customization,
> but I'd be inclined to set the default value at WRAPLIMIT = 1G.
> 
> Comments?  Vadim, is any of this about to be superseded by WAL?
> If not, I'd like to fix it for 7.1.

If undo would be implemented then we could delete pg_log between
postmaster startups - startup counter is remembered in pages, so
seeing old startup id in a page we would know that there are only
long ago committed xactions (ie only visible changes) there
and avoid xid comparison. But ... there will be no undo in 7.1.
And I foresee problems with WAL based BAR implementation if we'll
follow proposed solution: redo restores original xmin/xmax - how
to "freeze" xids while restoring DB?

(Sorry, I have to run away now... and have to think more about issue).

Vadim

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-11-04 00:43:16
Subject: Re: VACUUM causes violent postmaster death
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2000-11-04 00:21:12
Subject: Re: Alpha FreeBSD port of PostgreSQL !!!

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group