Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table.

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table.
Date: 2015-12-17 06:44:46
Message-ID: CANP8+j+tJc-gKe=1gmv6VRuANQ+A_Y_+PccBEZQm3+bjt-FAcg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 9 December 2015 at 18:31, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:48:04PM +0530, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 2:21 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Masahiko Sawada <
> sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Yeah, we need to consider to compute checksum if enabled.
> >> >> I've changed the patch, and attached.
> >> >> Please review it.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for the update. This now conflicts with the updates doesn to
> >> > fix pg_upgrade out-of-space issue on Windows. I've fixed (I think) the
> >> > conflict in order to do some testing, but I'd like to get an updated
> >> > patch from the author in case I did it wrong. I don't want to find
> >> > bugs that I just introduced myself.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Thank you for having a look.
> >
> > I would not bother mentioning this detail in the pg_upgrade manual page:
> >
> > + Since the format of visibility map has been changed in version 9.6,
> > + <application>pg_upgrade</> creates and rewrite new
> <literal>'_vm'</literal>
> > + file even if upgrading from 9.5 or before to 9.6 or later with link
> mode (-k).
>
> Really? I know we don't always document things like this, but it
> seems like a good idea to me that we do so.
>

Agreed.

For me, rewriting the visibility map is a new data loss bug waiting to
happen. I am worried that the group is not taking seriously the potential
for catastrophe here. I think we can do it, but I think it needs these
things

* Clear notice that it is happening unconditionally and unavoidably
* Log files showing it has happened, action by action
* Very clear mechanism for resolving an incomplete or interrupted upgrade
process. Which VMs got upgraded? Which didn't?
* Ability to undo an upgrade attempt, somehow, ideally automatically by
default
* Ability to restart a failed upgrade attempt without doing a "double
upgrade", i.e. ensure transformation is immutable

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2015-12-17 06:52:12 Re: Improving replay of XLOG_BTREE_VACUUM records
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2015-12-17 06:24:52 Re: Making tab-complete.c easier to maintain