Re: do only critical work during single-user vacuum?

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: do only critical work during single-user vacuum?
Date: 2022-02-15 14:16:06
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaQ3U0nUCGjkgN314kgRo3hWv6s=r8DzojTMF+_HS4q0A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 1:04 AM John Naylor
<john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Well, the point of inventing this new vacuum mode was because I
> thought that upon reaching xidStopLimit, we couldn't issue commands,
> period, under the postmaster. If it was easier to get a test instance
> to xidStopLimit, I certainly would have discovered this sooner. When
> Andres wondered about getting away from single user mode, I assumed
> that would involve getting into areas too deep to tackle for v15. As
> Robert pointed out, lazy_truncate_heap is the only thing that can't
> happen for vacuum at this point, and fully explains why in versions <
> 14 our client's attempts to vacuum resulted in error. Since the
> failsafe mode turns off truncation, vacuum should now *just work* near
> wraparound. If there is any doubt, we can tighten the check for
> entering failsafe.

+1 to all of that.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2022-02-15 14:34:32 Re: bailing out in tap tests nearly always a bad idea
Previous Message Joe Conway 2022-02-15 14:10:25 Re: Observability in Postgres