From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "Wood, Dan" <hexpert(at)amazon(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Wong, Yi Wen" <yiwong(at)amazon(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple |
Date: | 2017-12-07 09:32:51 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqTX1JvSANy7v149x+BZwPSj0D2KrW2z78mGHHGQgqFSdQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> Looking at 0002: I agree with the stuff being done here.
The level of details you are providing with a proper error code is an
improvement over the first version proposed in my opinion.
> I think a
> couple of these checks could be moved one block outerwards in term of
> scope; I don't see any reason why the check should not apply in that
> case. I didn't catch any place missing additional checks.
In FreezeMultiXactId() wouldn't it be better to issue an error as well
for this assertion?
Assert(!TransactionIdPrecedes(members[i].xid, cutoff_xid));
> Despite these being "shouldn't happen" conditions, I think we should
> turn these up all the way to ereports with an errcode and all, and also
> report the XIDs being complained about. No translation required,
> though. Other than those changes and minor copy editing a commit
> (attached), 0002 looks good to me.
+ if (!(tuple->t_infomask & HEAP_XMAX_LOCK_ONLY) &&
+ TransactionIdDidCommit(xid))
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_DATA_CORRUPTED),
+ errmsg("can't freeze committed xmax %u", xid)));
The usual wording used in errmsg is not the "can't" but "cannot".
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_DATA_CORRUPTED),
+ errmsg_internal("uncommitted Xmin %u from
before xid cutoff %u needs to be frozen",
+ xid, cutoff_xid)));
"Xmin" I have never seen, but "xmin" I did.
> I started thinking it'd be good to report block number whenever anything
> happened while scanning the relation. The best way to go about this
> seems to be to add an errcontext callback to lazy_scan_heap, so I attach
> a WIP untested patch to add that. (I'm not proposing this for
> back-patch for now, mostly because I don't have the time/energy to push
> for it right now.)
I would recommend to start a new thread and to add that patch to the
next commit fest as you would get more visibility and input from other
folks on -hackers. It looks like a good idea to me.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Khandekar | 2017-12-07 11:01:31 | Re: pgsql: Support Parallel Append plan nodes. |
Previous Message | Amit Khandekar | 2017-12-07 07:02:46 | Re: pgsql: Support Parallel Append plan nodes. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Anthony Bykov | 2017-12-07 09:54:55 | Re: Transform for pl/perl |
Previous Message | Alexander Kukushkin | 2017-12-07 09:31:10 | Re: Speeding up pg_upgrade |