On 2015-05-08 14:32:14 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > On 2015-05-08 14:15:44 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> Apparently, we have been hanging our hat since the release of 9.3.0 on > >> the theory that the average multixact won't ever have more than two > >> members, and therefore the members SLRU won't overwrite itself and > >> corrupt data. > > > > It's essentially a much older problem - it has essentially existed since > > multixacts were introduced (8.1?). The consequences of it were much > > lower before 9.3 though. > > OK, I wasn't aware of that. What exactly were the consequences before 9.3?
I think just problems when locking a row. That's obviously much less bad than problems when reading a row. > > FWIW, I intend to either work on this myself, or help whoever seriously > > tackles this, in the next cycle. > > That would be great. With "this" I mean freeze avoidance. While I obviously, having proposed it as well at some point, think that freeze maps are a possible solution, I'm not yet sure that it's the best solution. > I'll investigate what resources EnterpriseDB can commit to this. Cool. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
