From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade < 9.3 -> >=9.3 misses a step around multixacts |
Date: | 2014-07-20 20:02:25 |
Message-ID: | 20140720200225.GA5974@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 2014-07-20 13:37:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 03:01:06PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> Finally, there is the question of what to do if the database has already
> >> been upgraded and thus the tables are all at relminmxid=1. As far as I
> >> can tell, if the original value of nextMulti was below 2^31, there
> >> should be no issue because vacuuming would advance the value normally.
> >> If the original value was beyond that point, then vacuum would have been
> >> bleating all along about the wraparound point. In this case, I think it
> >> should be enough the UPDATE the pg_class values to the current
> >> oldestMulti value from pg_control, but I haven't tested this.
>
> > Well, we are already having users run a query for the 9.3.X minor
> > version upgrade to optionally remove the 0000 file. Is there something
> > else they should run to test for this? We certainly could check for
> > files >= 8000, but I am not sure that is sufficient. We would then need
> > them to somehow update all the database/relation minmxid fields, and I
> > am not even sure what value we should set it to. Is that something we
> > want to publish?
>
> I started transcribing Bruce's proposed fix procedure at
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/20140702pg_upgrade_fix
> into the release notes, but I'm afraid it's all wet.
I don't understand why we should do anything but remove the 0000 file if
it's all zeroes? This seems far too complicated. Beside the fact that I
doubt it's actually achieving anything reliably?
> I'm a bit inclined to not say anything about fix procedures in the release
> notes, because I'm not sure that this is a problem in the field. If
> anybody did have a wraparound they'd be getting bleats from VACUUM, and no
> one has reported any such thing that I've heard.
There actually have been a couple reports about the general problem I
think - reacting to one was how I noticed the bug.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-07-20 20:16:18 | Re: pg_upgrade < 9.3 -> >=9.3 misses a step around multixacts |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-07-20 19:55:25 | Re: pg_upgrade < 9.3 -> >=9.3 misses a step around multixacts |