From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Mark Dilger <hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: XID-wraparound hazards in LISTEN/NOTIFY |
Date: | 2019-11-23 17:10:56 |
Message-ID: | 28596.1574529056@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Mark Dilger <hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On 11/23/19 8:34 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It suddenly strikes me to worry that we have an XID wraparound hazard
>> for entries in the notify queue.
> Is it worth checking for this condition in autovacuum?
Dunno, maybe. It's a different avenue to consider, at least.
> There shouldn't be too much reason to back-patch any of this, since
> the change in 51004c717 only applies to v13 and onward. Or do you
> see the risk you described as "pretty minimal" as still being large
> enough to outweigh the risk of anything we might back-patch?
There may not be a risk large enough to worry about before 51004c717,
assuming that we discount cases like a single session staying
idle-in-transaction for long enough for the XID counter to wrap
(which'd cause problems for more than just LISTEN/NOTIFY). I haven't
analyzed this carefully enough to be sure. We'd have to consider
that, as well as the complexity of whatever fix we choose for HEAD,
while deciding if we need a back-patch.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2019-11-23 18:08:11 | Re: Getting psql to redisplay command after \e |
Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2019-11-23 17:02:20 | Re: XID-wraparound hazards in LISTEN/NOTIFY |