| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Maxim Boguk <maxim(dot)boguk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Jeremy Finzel <finzelj(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: found xmin from before relfrozenxid on pg_catalog.pg_authid |
| Date: | 2018-05-24 20:58:20 |
| Message-ID: | 20180524205820.quhhnn3n2ag5yryb@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-05-24 16:49:40 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> BTW is it just a coincidence or are all the affected tables pg_authid?
> Maybe the problem is shared relations ..? Maybe the fact that they have
> separate relfrozenxid (!?) in different databases?
Yes, that appears to be part of the problem. I've looked at a number of
shared relation related codepaths, but so far my theory is that the
relcache is wrong. Note that one of the reports in this thread clearly
had a different relcache relfrozenxid than in the catalog.
Then there's also:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1527193504642.36340%40amazon.com
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeremy Finzel | 2018-05-24 20:59:15 | Re: found xmin from before relfrozenxid on pg_catalog.pg_authid |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-05-24 20:49:40 | Re: found xmin from before relfrozenxid on pg_catalog.pg_authid |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeremy Finzel | 2018-05-24 20:59:15 | Re: found xmin from before relfrozenxid on pg_catalog.pg_authid |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-05-24 20:49:40 | Re: found xmin from before relfrozenxid on pg_catalog.pg_authid |