| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Removing more vacuumlazy.c special cases, relfrozenxid optimizations |
| Date: | 2022-03-31 04:24:43 |
| Message-ID: | 20220331042443.ax34p5r2fwgwup4n@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2022-03-30 21:11:48 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 9:04 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > (gdb) p vacrel->NewRelfrozenXid
> > $3 = 717
> > (gdb) p vacrel->relfrozenxid
> > $4 = 717
> > (gdb) p OldestXmin
> > $5 = 5112
> > (gdb) p aggressive
> > $6 = false
>
> Does this OldestXmin seem reasonable at this point in execution, based
> on context? Does it look too high? Something else?
Reasonable:
(gdb) p *ShmemVariableCache
$1 = {nextOid = 78969, oidCount = 2951, nextXid = {value = 21411}, oldestXid = 714, xidVacLimit = 200000714, xidWarnLimit = 2107484361,
xidStopLimit = 2144484361, xidWrapLimit = 2147484361, oldestXidDB = 1, oldestCommitTsXid = 0, newestCommitTsXid = 0, latestCompletedXid = {value = 21408},
xactCompletionCount = 1635, oldestClogXid = 714}
I think the explanation I just sent explains the problem, without "in-memory"
confusion about what's running and what's not.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2022-03-31 04:29:16 | Re: Removing more vacuumlazy.c special cases, relfrozenxid optimizations |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-03-31 04:20:38 | Re: Removing more vacuumlazy.c special cases, relfrozenxid optimizations |