Re: prion failed with ERROR: missing chunk number 0 for toast value 14334 in pg_toast_2619

From: "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bdrouvot(at)amazon(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
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: 2021-05-18 11:04:18
Message-ID: 9b671763-659c-0a18-7636-809da82912b2@amazon.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 5/17/21 8:56 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
>
>
>
> 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.

Thanks!

>
>> 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.

I'll copy/paste this feedback (+ an updated patch to make use of
TransactionIdIsNormal() checks) to the thread [1] that is linked to the
commitfest entry.

Thanks

Bertrand

[1]:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/fe006d56-85f1-5f1e-98e7-05b53dff4f51@amazon.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Drouvot, Bertrand 2021-05-18 11:26:38 Re: [UNVERIFIED SENDER] Re: pg_upgrade can result in early wraparound on databases with high transaction load
Previous Message tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com 2021-05-18 10:50:51 RE: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions