| From: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: vacuum_multixact_failsafe_age doesn't account for MultiXact member exhaustion |
| Date: | 2025-05-22 02:24:22 |
| Message-ID: | CAA5RZ0u43s4YbR=0mJ0_k3VGWjchJHhYnCoaZVzeLd3ccZtwhQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> ISTM that vacuum_xid_failsafe_check() should really be doing something
> similar. For example, it could prorate using
> vacuum_multixact_failsafe_age, calculating a member-space-wise
> threshold to trigger the failsafe at, independent of
> mxid_age(relminmxid) itself.
+1. For the case mentioned in this thread, running
vacuum without index-cleanup did help in their case. So triggering
failsafe based on a member-space-wise threshold sounds like a good idea to me.
I also think exposing the members count [0] will be a good idea
as well. One of the complaints in the postmortem is the lack of
visibility into multixact members.
--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | jian he | 2025-05-22 02:25:58 | Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-05-22 01:30:40 | Re: Issues with 2PC at recovery: CLOG lookups and GlobalTransactionData |