Re: [HACKERS] Re: 9.4.1 -> 9.4.2 problem: could not access status of transaction 1

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Andres Freund
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Re: 9.4.1 -> 9.4.2 problem: could not access status of transaction 1
Дата
Msg-id 20150602212255.GW30287@alap3.anarazel.de
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Re: 9.4.1 -> 9.4.2 problem: could not access status of transaction 1  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] Re: 9.4.1 -> 9.4.2 problem: could not access status of transaction 1  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-general
> > Hm. If GetOldestMultiXactOnDisk() gets the starting point by scanning
> > the disk it'll always get one at a segment boundary, right? I'm not sure
> > that's actually ok; because the value at the beginning of the segment
> > can very well end up being a 0, as MaybeExtendOffsetSlru() will have
> > filled the page with zeros.
> >
> > I think that should be harmless, the worst that can happen is that
> > oldestOffset errorneously is 0, which should be correct, even though
> > possibly overly conservative, in these cases.
>
> Uh oh.  That seems like a real bad problem for this approach.  What
> keeps that from being the opposite of too conservative?  There's no
> "safe" value in a circular numbering space.

I think it *might* (I'm really jetlagged) be fine because that'll only
happen after a upgrade from < 9.3. And in that case we initialize
nextOffset to 0. That ought to safe us?

Greetings,

Andres Freund


В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Re: 9.4.1 -> 9.4.2 problem: could not access status of transaction 1
Следующее
От: Adrian Klaver
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: postgres db permissions