From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Incomplete freezing when truncating a relation during vacuum |
Date: | 2013-12-01 23:08:22 |
Message-ID: | 20131201230822.GA778@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-12-01 18:02:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On 2013-12-01 17:15:31 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Is there really a significant risk of clog access errors due to this bug?
> >> IIUC, the risk is that tuples in pages that vacuum skips due to being
> >> all-visible might not be frozen when intended.
>
> > Unfortunately it's not actually too hard to hit due to following part of the
> > code in vacuumlazy.c:
>
> > /*
> > * If we're not scanning the whole relation to guard against XID
> > * wraparound, it's OK to skip vacuuming a page. The next vacuum
> > * will clean it up.
> > */
>
> Ah. So it's only been *seriously* broken since commit bbb6e559c, ie 9.2.
Well, even before that crash recovery/replication didn't necessarily
preserve the hint bits. Even more so if somebody dared to set
full_page_writes=off.
I personally think full_page_writes=off should conflict with wal_level
!= minimal, btw, but I don't see much chance of gaining acceptance for
that.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-12-01 23:56:19 | Draft release notes for 9.3.2 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-12-01 23:02:27 | Re: Incomplete freezing when truncating a relation during vacuum |