From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Steve Kehlet <steve(dot)kehlet(at)gmail(dot)com>, Forums postgresql <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 9.4.1 -> 9.4.2 problem: could not access status of transaction 1 |
Date: | 2015-06-04 21:35:00 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoarGeGZnmRR1h27YHzh-Msyag+627rjj0cmXf6uocHetQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> - Forces aggressive autovacuuming when the control file's
> oldestMultiXid doesn't point to a valid MultiXact and enables member
> wraparound at the next checkpoint following the correction of that
> problem.
Err, enables member wraparound *protection* at the next checkpoint,
not the wraparound itself.
It's worth noting that every startup will now include one of the
following two messages:
LOG: MultiXact member wraparound protections are now enabled
Or:
LOG: MultiXact member wraparound protections are disabled because
oldest checkpointed MultiXact %u does not exist on disk
...where %u is probably 1
If you get the second one, you'll get the first one later after vacuum
has done its thing and a checkpoint has happened.
This is, obviously, some log chatter for people who don't have a
problem and never have, but I think it's worth emitting the first
message at startup even when there's no problem, so that people don't
have to make inferences from the absence of a message. We can tell
people very simply that (1) if they see the first message, everything
is fine; (2) if they see the second message, autovacuum is going to
clean things up and they will eventually see the first message; and
(3) if they see neither message, they haven't upgraded to a fixed
version yet.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2015-06-04 23:47:43 | Re: [GENERAL] 9.4.1 -> 9.4.2 problem: could not access status of transaction 1 |
Previous Message | Sergiy Zuban | 2015-06-04 21:30:08 | Re: postgres_fdw - push down conditionals for ENUMs |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-06-04 21:43:42 | Re: [idea] more aggressive join pushdown on postgres_fdw |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-06-04 21:29:51 | Re: [GENERAL] 9.4.1 -> 9.4.2 problem: could not access status of transaction 1 |