| From: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: pg14b1 stuck in lazy_scan_prune/heap_page_prune of pg_statistic |
| Date: | 2021-06-10 15:20:47 |
| Message-ID: | CAEze2WgHq8QBBF=_AT5WrR5Mprs5gnv3n96gLFO6y15fPC_xMQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 20:45, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> Specifically, the issue is that it uses the innocuous looking
>
> else if (RelationIsAccessibleInLogicalDecoding(rel))
> return horizons.catalog_oldest_nonremovable;
>
> but that's not sufficient, because
>
> #define RelationIsAccessibleInLogicalDecoding(relation) \
> (XLogLogicalInfoActive() && \
> RelationNeedsWAL(relation) && \
> (IsCatalogRelation(relation) || RelationIsUsedAsCatalogTable(relation)))
>
> it is never true if wal_level < logical. So what it is missing is the
> IsCatalogRelation(rel) || bit.
Correct.
> > The attached patch fixes this inconsistency
>
> I think I prefer applying the fix and the larger changes separately.
Feel free to change anything in that patch, it was a prototype, or
give me a notice if you want me to split the patch.
> > Another approach might be changing GlobalVisTestFor(rel) instead to
> > reflect the conditions in GetOldestNonRemovableTransactionId.
>
> No, that'd not be correct, afaict.
Allright, I wasn't sure of that myself.
With regards,
Matthias van de Meent.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-06-10 15:24:16 | Re: "an SQL" vs. "a SQL" |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2021-06-10 15:00:51 | Re: "an SQL" vs. "a SQL" |