Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade problem

Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from hubert depesz lubaczewski's message of lun ago 29 14:49:24 -0300 2011:
> > On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 06:54:41PM +0200, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 05:28:35PM +0200, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 12:18:55AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, this was very helpful. I found out that there is a bug in current
> > > > > 9.0.X, 9.1.X, and HEAD that I introduced recently when I excluded temp
> > > > > tables. (The bug is not in any released version of pg_upgrade.) The
> > > > > attached, applied patches should fix it for you. I assume you are
> > > > > running 9.0.X, and not 9.0.4.
> > > >
> > > > pg_upgrade worked. Now I'm doing reindex and later on vacuumdb -az.
> > >
> > > vacuumdb failed. The fail looks very similar to the one I had on 9.0.4.
> > >
> > > After long vacuum I got:
> > > INFO: vacuuming "pg_toast.pg_toast_106668498"
> > > vacuumdb: vacuuming of database "etsy_v2" failed: ERROR: could not access status of transaction 3429738606
> > > DETAIL: Could not open file "pg_clog/0CC6": No such file or directory.
>
> I don't understand the pg_upgrade code here. It is setting the
> datfrozenxid and relfrozenxid values to the latest checkpoint's NextXID,
>
> /* set pg_class.relfrozenxid */
> PQclear(executeQueryOrDie(conn,
> "UPDATE pg_catalog.pg_class "
> "SET relfrozenxid = '%u' "
> /* only heap and TOAST are vacuumed */
> "WHERE relkind IN ('r', 't')",
> old_cluster.controldata.chkpnt_nxtxid));
>
> but I don't see why this is safe. I mean, surely the previous
> vacuum might have been a lot earlier than that. Are these values reset
> to more correct values (i.e. older ones) later somehow? My question is,
> why isn't the new cluster completely screwed?

Have you looked at my pg_upgrade presentation?

http://momjian.us/main/presentations/features.html#pg_upgrade

This query happens after we have done a VACUUM FREEEZE on an empty
cluster.

pg_dump --binary-upgrade will dump out the proper relfrozen xids for
every object that gets its file system files copied or linked.

> I wonder if pg_upgrade shouldn't be doing the conservative thing here,
> which AFAICT would be to set all frozenxid values as furthest in the
> past as possible (without causing a shutdown-due-to-wraparound, and
> maybe without causing autovacuum to enter emergency mode either).

I already get complaints about requiring an "analyze" run after the
upgrade --- this would make it much worse. In fact I have to look into
upgrading optimizer statistics someday.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +