| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Bowen Shi <zxwsbg12138(at)gmail(dot)com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: relfrozenxid may disagree with row XIDs after 1ccc1e05ae |
| Date: | 2024-05-16 16:49:00 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzmO-GPN8kpSCWzkq27FRk8xCBoDKJcMqVTYC+Dt8s4ZDQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 12:38 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> I'm wondering if there was index processing, due to the number of tuples. And
> if so, what type of indexes. There'd need to be something that could lead to
> new snapshots being acquired...
Did you ever see this theory of mine, about B-Tree page deletion +
recycling? See:
(And related nearby emails from me.)
It looked very much like index vacuuming was involved in some way when
I actually had the opportunity to use gdb against an affected
production instance that ran into the problem.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-05-16 16:58:29 | Re: BUG #18467: postgres_fdw (deparser) ignores LimitOption |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2024-05-16 16:47:21 | Re: BUG #18467: postgres_fdw (deparser) ignores LimitOption |