From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Alexandre Garcia <alexandre(at)vmfarms(dot)com>, "pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: postgresql 9.6 - cannot freeze committed xmax |
Date: | 2018-03-01 17:40:10 |
Message-ID: | 20180301174010.vqrjlps5stz6opzd@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Andres Freund wrote:
> Wonder if this a big enough fix? Isn't the bug "one layer up"? We
> shouldn't do the TransactionIdPrecedes() calls in the surrounding block,
> in the first place, right? Right now we could very well hit both
> ERROR: found xmax %u from before relfrozenxid %u
> and
> ERROR: cannot freeze committed xmax %u
> and freeze_xmax, totally_frozen will be wrong. I think that's largely
> harmless, but we should fix it nonetheless, and inspect other relevant
> sites.
Hmm ...
After reading the 9.2 code, I don't think so. These values must
absolutely be still within the freeze limits. The version pre-pgupgrade
should have replaced the xmax with InvalidTransactionId as soon as the
tuple was freezable.
In fact, I checked 9.2's code and heap_tuple_needs_freeze tests "if xmax
not a multi and < cutoff_xid"; and in that case heap_freeze_tuple does
change the value to 0.
I hope I'm not misunderstanding what you mean.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-03-01 21:32:08 | Re: postgresql 9.6 - cannot freeze committed xmax |
Previous Message | MichaelDBA | 2018-03-01 16:06:37 | Re: Postgresql | Vacuum information |