Re: Re: [GENERAL] 9.4.1 -> 9.4.2 problem: could not access status of transaction 1

On 2015-06-02 11:37:02 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> The exact circumstances under which we're willing to replace a
> relminmxid with a newly-computed one that differs are not altogether
> clear to me, but there's an "if" statement protecting that logic, so
> there are some circumstances in which we'll leave the existing value
> intact.

I guess we'd have to change that then.

> It would similarly do so when the oldest MXID reference in the
> relation is in fact 1, but that value can't be vacuumed away yet.

I'd thought of just forcing consumption of one multixact in that
case. Not pretty, but imo acceptable.

> Also, the database might be really big. Even if it were true that a
> full scan of every table would get us out of this state, describing
> the time that it would take to do that as "relatively short" seems to
> me to be considerably understating the impact of a full-cluster
> VACUUM.

Well. We're dealing with a corrupted cluster. Having a way out that's
done automatically, even if it takes a long while, is pretty good
already. In many cases the corruption (i.e. pg_upgrade) happened long
ago, so the table's relminmxid will already have been recomputed. I
think that's acceptable.

> With regard to the more general question of WAL-logging this, are you
> going to work on that? Are you hoping Alvaro or I will work on that?
> Should we draw straws? It seems like somebody needs to do it.

I'm willing to invest the time to develop an initial version, but I'll
need help evaluating it. I don't have many testing resources available
atm, and I'm not going to trust stuff I developed while travelling by
just looking at the code.

Greetings,

Andres Freund