| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: pg14b1 stuck in lazy_scan_prune/heap_page_prune of pg_statistic |
| Date: | 2021-06-11 02:00:13 |
| Message-ID: | 20210611020013.phhxgc5u3palfe76@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2021-06-10 18:49:50 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> ISTM that it would be much more useful to focus on adding an assertion
> (or maybe even a "can't happen" error) that fails when the DEAD/goto
> path is reached with a tuple whose xmin wasn't aborted. If that was in
> place then we would have caught the bug in
> GetOldestNonRemovableTransactionId() far sooner. That might actually
> catch other bugs in the future.
I'm not convinced - right now we don't exercise this path in tests at
all. More assertions won't change that - stuff that can be triggered in
production-ish loads doesn't help during development. I do think that
that makes it far too easy to have state management bugs (e.g. a wrong
pincount in retry cases or such).
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-06-11 02:00:24 | Re: pg14b1 stuck in lazy_scan_prune/heap_page_prune of pg_statistic |
| Previous Message | tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com | 2021-06-11 01:58:26 | RE: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2 |