| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih(at)amazon(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: False "pg_serial": apparent wraparound” in logs |
| Date: | 2023-10-16 07:58:31 |
| Message-ID: | ZSztJy1CS6iyOeBO@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 07:29:54PM +0000, Imseih (AWS), Sami wrote:
>> Anyway, it looks like you're right, we don't really need the SLRU once
>> the tail is ahead of the tail because the SLRU has wrapped around due
>> to the effect of transactions aging out, so making the truncation a
>> bit smarter should be OK.
>
> I assume you meant " the tail is ahead of the head".
Damn fingers on a keyboard who don't know how to type.
>> Hmm. This doesn't seem enough. Shouldn't we explain at least in
>> which scenarios the tail can get ahead of the head (aka at least
>> with long running transactions that make the SLRU wrap-around)?
>> Except if I am missing something, there is no explanation of that in
>> predicate.c.
>
> After looking at this a bit more, I don't think the previous rev is correct.
> We should not fall through to the " The SLRU is no longer needed." Which
> also sets the headPage to invalid. We should only truncate up to the
> head page.
Seems correct to me. Or this would count as if the SLRU is not in
use, but it's being used.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Anton A. Melnikov | 2023-10-16 08:04:25 | Re: Some performance degradation in REL_16 vs REL_15 |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-10-16 07:29:56 | Re: Add support for AT LOCAL |