From: | "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Allow ERROR from heap_prepare_freeze_tuple to be downgraded to WARNING |
Date: | 2020-07-19 11:26:54 |
Message-ID: | F240E556-5451-4F20-B368-EB9913835D98@yandex-team.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Dilip!
> 17 июля 2020 г., в 15:46, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> написал(а):
>
> The attached patch allows the vacuum to continue by emitting WARNING
> for the corrupted tuple instead of immediately error out as discussed
> at [1].
>
> Basically, it provides a new GUC called vacuum_tolerate_damage, to
> control whether to continue the vacuum or to stop on the occurrence of
> a corrupted tuple. So if the vacuum_tolerate_damage is set then in
> all the cases in heap_prepare_freeze_tuple where the corrupted xid is
> detected, it will emit a warning and return that nothing is changed in
> the tuple and the 'tuple_totally_frozen' will also be set to false.
> Since we are returning false the caller will not try to freeze such
> tuple and the tuple_totally_frozen is also set to false so that the
> page will not be marked to all frozen even if all other tuples in the
> page are frozen.
>
> Alternatively, we can try to freeze other XIDs in the tuple which is
> not corrupted but I don't think we will gain anything from this,
> because if one of the xmin or xmax is wrong then next time also if we
> run the vacuum then we are going to get the same WARNING or the ERROR.
> Is there any other opinion on this?
FWIW AFAIK this ERROR was the reason why we had to use older versions of heap_prepare_freeze_tuple() in our recovery kit [0].
So +1 from me.
But I do not think that just ignoring corruption here is sufficient. Soon after this freeze problem user will, probably, have to deal with absent CLOG.
I think this GUC is only a part of an incomplete solution.
Personally I'd be happy if this is backported - our recovery kit would be much smaller. But this does not seem like a valid reason.
Thanks!
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
[0] https://github.com/dsarafan/pg_dirty_hands/blob/master/src/pg_dirty_hands.c#L443
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2020-07-19 11:38:37 | Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk |
Previous Message | Andy Fan | 2020-07-19 03:03:26 | Re: [PATCH] Keeps tracking the uniqueness with UniqueKey |