| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bdrouvot(at)amazon(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: prion failed with ERROR: missing chunk number 0 for toast value 14334 in pg_toast_2619 |
| Date: | 2021-05-17 18:56:46 |
| Message-ID: | 20210517185646.pwe4klaufwmdhe2a@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2021-05-17 20:14:40 +0200, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> FWIW a patch proposal to copy the oldest unfrozen XID during pg_upgrade (it
> adds a new (- u) parameter to pg_resetwal) has been submitted a couple of
> weeks ago, see: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/33/3105/
I'll try to look at it soon.
> I was also wondering if:
>
> * We should keep the old behavior in case pg_resetwal -x is being used
> without -u?
(The proposed patch does not set an arbitrary oldestXID
> anymore in
case -x is used)
I don't think we should. I don't see anything in the old behaviour worth
maintaining.
> * We should ensure that the xid provided with -x or -u is
> >=
FirstNormalTransactionId (Currently the only check is that it is
> # 0)?
Applying TransactionIdIsNormal() seems like a good idea. I think it's
important to verify that the xid provided with -x is within a reasonable
range of the oldest xid.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2021-05-17 19:29:04 | Re: PG 14 release notes, first draft |
| Previous Message | Drouvot, Bertrand | 2021-05-17 18:14:40 | Re: prion failed with ERROR: missing chunk number 0 for toast value 14334 in pg_toast_2619 |