From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | spurious wrap-around shutdown |
Date: | 2013-06-18 02:55:44 |
Message-ID: | CAMkU=1xDr+fjZ87RVz2458FYgUpgPcBV8zik5widYw+Qttu4rA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Jeff Janes
<jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com');>
> wrote:
> In 9.3 HEAD I am getting what seems to be spurious wrap-around shutdowns.
>
>
> postgres=# SELECT datname, datfrozenxid, age(datfrozenxid) FROM
> pg_database;
>
> datname | datfrozenxid | age
> -----------+--------------+-----------
> template1 | 2621759843 | 0
> template0 | 2621759843 | 0
> postgres | 2571759843 | 50000000
> jjanes | 2437230921 | 184528922
>
While the behavior is weird, it is not a regression (also present in 9.2
with suitable changes in timing) and the shutdown is not spurious.
If I execute the above query immediately after the shutdown, I see what I
would expect, jjanes has an age of about 2^31.
The one table that is holding everything back is already getting autovac
for wraparound at that point, and eventually that vacuum finishes. When
done, pg_class and pg_database are updated (I don't know how they get
updated without trying to assign another transaction), and then I get the
above query results.
I would think the database would re-allow new transactions at this point,
but it does not. I don't know why.
Since this isn't a regression in 9.3, I probably won't pursue it any more
at this time, unless encouraged to.
Cheers,
Jeff
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2013-06-18 04:06:08 | Re: SET work_mem = '1TB'; |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2013-06-18 02:48:02 | Re: How do we track backpatches? |