|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>|
|Cc:||Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, MBeena Emerson <mbeena(dot)emerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>|
|Subject:||Re: recovering from "found xmin ... from before relfrozenxid ..."|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2020-09-21 16:40:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>>> I think that's an argument for what I suggested elsewhere, which is that
>>> we should move the logic for a different horizon for temp tables out of
>>> vacuum_set_xid_limits, and into procarray.
>> But procarray does not seem like a great place for
>> table-persistence-dependent decisions either?
> That ship has sailed a long long time ago though. GetOldestXmin() has
> looked at the passed in relation for a quite a while, and even before
> that we had logic about 'allDbs' etc. It doesn't easily seem possible
> to avoid that, given how intimately that's coupled with how snapshots
> are built and used, database & vacuumFlags checks etc.
OK. Given that you've got strong feelings about this, do you want to
propose a patch? I'm happy to fix it, since it's at least in part my
bug, but I probably won't do it exactly like you would.
regards, tom lane
|Next Message||Thomas Munro||2020-09-21 21:08:13||Re: Handing off SLRU fsyncs to the checkpointer|
|Previous Message||Andres Freund||2020-09-21 21:01:09||Re: recovering from "found xmin ... from before relfrozenxid ..."|