Re: [PATCH] Transaction traceability - txid_status(bigint)

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Álvaro Herrera <alvaro(dot)herrera(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Transaction traceability - txid_status(bigint)
Date: 2017-03-09 18:55:25
Message-ID: CA+TgmobDUczDrBOp_0aCff_Pv8pvFyqsU9HU_S6eK3gwE3R6WQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> The way that SetTransactionIdLimit() now works looks a bit dangerous.
>> xidWrapLimit, xidStopLimit, and xidWarnLimit are computed based on the
>> passed-in oldestXid value and written straight into shared memory.
>> But the shared memory copy of oldestXid could have a different value.
>> I'm not sure if that breaks anything, but it certainly weakens any
>> confidence callers might have had that all those values are consistent
>> with each other.
>
> This was my main hesitation with the whole thing too.
>
> It's necessary to advance oldestXmin before we xlog the advance and
> truncate clog, and necessary to advance the vacuum limits only
> afterwards.

Well, that's why I tried to advocate that their should be two separate
XID limits in shared memory: leave what's there now the way it is, and
then add a new limit for "don't try to look up XIDs before this point:
splat". I still think that'd be less risky.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2017-03-09 19:01:42 Re: [PATCH] Add pg_disable_checksums() and supporting infrastructure
Previous Message Kuntal Ghosh 2017-03-09 18:52:32 Re: exposing wait events for non-backends (was: Tracking wait event for latches)