From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: heap_tuple_needs_freeze false positive |
Date: | 2012-02-02 17:54:50 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ+4r0CKPqgi7uWQsFesVsX-hS+EgCh4S94GZPBHxkKUQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I believe the adequate defense that we have is precisely the logic you
> are proposing to change. Regardless of whether you want to call
> XMAX_INVALID a hint or, say, a giant tortoise, I am fairly sure that
> we don't WAL-log setting it. That means that a bit set before a crash
> won't necessarily still be set after a crash. But the corresponding
> relfrozenxid advancement will be WAL-logged, leading to the problem
> scenario I described.
To put that another way, the problem isn't that we might have code
somewhere in the system that ignores HEAP_XMAX_INVALID. The problem
is that HEAP_XMAX_INVALID might not still be set on that tuple the
next time somebody looks at it, if a database crash intervenes after
that bit is set and before it is flushed to disk.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-02-02 18:01:48 | ecpglib use PQconnectdbParams |
Previous Message | Gilles Darold | 2012-02-02 17:47:35 | Re: Patch pg_is_in_backup() |