Re: 9.4.1 -> 9.4.2 problem: could not access status of transaction 1

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Steve Kehlet <steve(dot)kehlet(at)gmail(dot)com>, Forums postgresql <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 9.4.1 -> 9.4.2 problem: could not access status of transaction 1
Date: 2015-06-04 21:35:00
Message-ID: CA+TgmoarGeGZnmRR1h27YHzh-Msyag+627rjj0cmXf6uocHetQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> - Forces aggressive autovacuuming when the control file's
> oldestMultiXid doesn't point to a valid MultiXact and enables member
> wraparound at the next checkpoint following the correction of that
> problem.

Err, enables member wraparound *protection* at the next checkpoint,
not the wraparound itself.

It's worth noting that every startup will now include one of the
following two messages:

LOG: MultiXact member wraparound protections are now enabled

Or:

LOG: MultiXact member wraparound protections are disabled because
oldest checkpointed MultiXact %u does not exist on disk
...where %u is probably 1

If you get the second one, you'll get the first one later after vacuum
has done its thing and a checkpoint has happened.

This is, obviously, some log chatter for people who don't have a
problem and never have, but I think it's worth emitting the first
message at startup even when there's no problem, so that people don't
have to make inferences from the absence of a message. We can tell
people very simply that (1) if they see the first message, everything
is fine; (2) if they see the second message, autovacuum is going to
clean things up and they will eventually see the first message; and
(3) if they see neither message, they haven't upgraded to a fixed
version yet.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2015-06-04 23:47:43 Re: [GENERAL] 9.4.1 -> 9.4.2 problem: could not access status of transaction 1
Previous Message Sergiy Zuban 2015-06-04 21:30:08 Re: postgres_fdw - push down conditionals for ENUMs

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2015-06-04 21:43:42 Re: [idea] more aggressive join pushdown on postgres_fdw
Previous Message Robert Haas 2015-06-04 21:29:51 Re: [GENERAL] 9.4.1 -> 9.4.2 problem: could not access status of transaction 1