On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 10:37:24AM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 08.03.2011 10:00, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >Another idea is to give up on the warning when it appears that > >oldestxmin has moved backwards, and assume that it's actually fine. We > >could still warn in other cases where the flag appears to be incorrectly > >set, like if there is a deleted tuple on the page. > > This is probably a better idea at least in back-branches. It also > handles the case of twiddling vacuum_defer_cleanup_age, which tracking > two xmins per transactions would not handle. > > Here's a patch. I also changed the warning per Robert's suggestion. > Anyone see a hole in this?
It would be helpful to have the dbname and schema in the message in addition to the relname. I added those to the original diagnostic patch as it was not clear that the messages were all related to the same page/table/dg. Also, in your comment you might mention that multiple databases are one way we could see oldestxmin move backwards. -dg -- David Gould da...@sonic.net 510 536 1443 510 282 0869 If simplicity worked, the world would be overrun with insects. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
