From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | PostgreSQL Bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | pg_upgrade < 9.3 -> >=9.3 misses a step around multixacts |
Date: | 2014-05-30 12:16:31 |
Message-ID: | 20140530121631.GE25431@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Hi,
When upgrading a < 9.3 cluster pg_upgrade doesn't bother to keep the old
multixacts around because they won't be read after the upgrade (and
aren't compatible). It just resets the new cluster's nextMulti to the
old + 1.
Unfortunately that means that there'll be a offsets/0000 file created by
initdb around. Sounds harmless enough, but that'll actually cause
problems if the old cluster had a nextMulti that's bigger than that
page.
When vac_truncate_clog() calls TruncateMultiXact() that'll scan
pg_multixact/offsets to find the earliest existing segment. That'll be
0000. If the to-be-truncated data is older than the last existing
segment it returns. Then it'll try to determine the last required data
in members/ by accessing the oldest data in offsets/.
Unfortunately, due to the existing 0000/ segment, that means it'll
sometimes try to access a nonexistant offsets/ file. Preventing vacuum
et al from succeeding.
It seems to me the fix for this is to a) rmtree("pg_multixact/members",
false) in copy_clog_xlog_xid() in the oldcluster < 9.3 case b) add a
warning to the release notes that everyone that used pg_upgrade and has
a 0000 file lying around should report to the mailinglist.
b) is a bit unsatisfactory, but I don't want to suggest removing the
file. In too many situations it might actually still be needed.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-05-30 12:20:05 | Re: pg_upgrade < 9.3 -> >=9.3 misses a step around multixacts |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2014-05-30 07:57:03 | Re: BUG #10432: failed to re-find parent key in index |