| From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Allow ERROR from heap_prepare_freeze_tuple to be downgraded to WARNING |
| Date: | 2020-09-15 07:22:25 |
| Message-ID: | CAFiTN-sUm2VTXO80up4n4cj3wB43dKpc+akWR6N3dRXraWmwEw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 11:14 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> On 2020-09-15 10:54:29 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > What problem do you see if we set xmax to the InvalidTransactionId and
> > HEAP_XMAX_INVALID flag in the infomask ?
>
> 1) It'll make a dead tuple appear live. You cannot do this for tuples
> with an xid below the horizon.
How is it possible? Because tuple which has a committed xmax and the
xmax is older than the oldestXmin, should not come for freezing unless
it is lock_only xid (because those tuples are already gone). So if
the xmax is smaller than the cutoff xid than either it is lock_only or
it is aborted. If the XMAX is lock only then I don't see any issue
OTOH if it is aborted xid and if it is already smaller than the
cut-off xid then it is anyway live tuple.
>2) it'll break HOT chain following / indexes.
If my above theory in point 1 is correct then I don't see this issue as well.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2020-09-15 07:39:43 | Re: pg_restore causing deadlocks on partitioned tables |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2020-09-15 07:00:54 | Re: logtape.c stats don't account for unused "prefetched" block numbers |