From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: GetOldestXmin going backwards is dangerous after all |
Date: | 2013-02-02 18:35:20 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nM+vZ+gcu-8+8Ouy9AY_CMTrMneUVFmaT69C_zM2FMDEUg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2 February 2013 00:24, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> * if allDbs is FALSE and there are no transactions running in the current
> * database, GetOldestXmin() returns latestCompletedXid. If a transaction
> * begins after that, its xmin will include in-progress transactions in other
> * databases that started earlier, so another call will return a lower value.
>
> The reason this is a problem is that GetOldestXmin ignores XIDs of
> processes that are connected to other DBs. It now seems to me that this
> is a flat-out bug. It can ignore their xmins, but it should include
> their XIDs, because the point of considering those XIDs is that they may
> contribute to the xmins of snapshots computed in the future by processes
> in our own DB. And snapshots never exclude any XIDs on the basis of
> which DB they're in. (They can't really, since we can't know when the
> snap is taken whether it might be used to examine shared catalogs.)
Agree thats a bug.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-02-02 18:38:09 | Re: GetOldestXmin going backwards is dangerous after all |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2013-02-02 18:34:29 | Re: GetOldestXmin going backwards is dangerous after all |