On 9/4/19 17:37, Nathan Bossart wrote:
Hi,
Currently, if you hold a multixact open long enough to generate an
"oldest multixact is far in the past" message during VACUUM, you may
see the following ERROR:
WARNING: oldest multixact is far in the past HINT: Close open transactions with multixacts soon to avoid wraparound problems. ERROR: multixact X from before cutoff Y found to be still running
Upon further inspection, I found that this is because the multixact
limit used in this case is the threshold for which we emit the "oldest
multixact" message. Instead, I think the multixact limit should be
set to the result of GetOldestMultiXactId(), effectively forcing a
minimum freeze age of zero. The ERROR itself is emitted by
FreezeMultiXactId() and appears to be a safeguard against problems
like this.
I've attached a patch to set the limit to the oldest multixact instead
of the "safeMxactLimit" in this case. I'd like to credit Jeremy
Schneider as the original reporter.
This was fun (sortof) - and a good part of the afternoon for Nathan, Nasby and myself today. A rather large PostgreSQL database with default autovacuum settings had a large table that started getting behind on Sunday. The server has a fairly large number of CPUs and a respectable workload. We realized today that with their XID generation they would go read-only to prevent wraparound tomorrow. (And perfectly healthy XID age on Sunday - that's wraparound in four days! Did I mention that I'm excited for the default limit GUC change in pg12?) To make matters more interesting, whenever we attempted to run a VACUUM command we encountered the ERROR message that Nate quoted on every single attempt! There was a momentary mild panic based on the "ERRCODE_DATA_CORRUPTED" message parameter in heapam.c
FreezeMultiXactId() ... but as we looked closer we're now thinking there might just be an obscure bug in the code that sets vacuum limits.
Nathan and Nasby and myself have been chatting about this for quite awhile but the vacuum code isn't exactly the simplest thing in the world to reason about. :) Anyway, it looks to me like
MultiXactMemberFreezeThreshold() is intended to progressively reduce the vacuum multixact limits across multiple vacuum runs on the same table, as pressure on the members space increases. I'm thinking there was just a small oversight in writing the formula where under the most aggressive circumstances, vacuum could actually be instructed to delete multixacts that are still in use by active transactions and trigger the failure we observed. Nate put together an initial patch (attached to the previous email, which was sent only to the bugs list). We couldn't quite come to a consensus and on the best approach, but we decided that he'd kick of the thread and I'd throw out an alternative version of the patch that might be worth discussion. [Attached to this email.] Curious what others think!
-Jeremy
--
Jeremy Schneider
Database Engineer
Amazon Web Services