On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> 
>> wrote:
>>> For example, I set old_snapshot_threshold = 1min and prepare a table
>>> and two terminals.
>>> And I did the followings steps.
>>> 1. [Terminal 1] Begin transaction and get snapshot data and wait.
>>>      SELECT * FROM test;
>>> 2. [Terminal 2] Another session updates test table in order to make
>>> snapshot dirty.
>>>      BEGIN;
>>>      UPDATE test SET c = c + 100;
>>>      COMMIT;
>>> 3. [Terminal 1] 1 minute after, read the test table again in same
>>> transaction opened at #1. I got no error.
>>>     SELECT * FROM test;
>>> 4. [Terminal 2] Another session reads the test table.
>>>      BEGIN;
>>>      SELECT * FROM test;
>>>      COMMIT;
>>> 5. [Terminal 1] 1 minute after, read the test table again, and got
>>> "snapshot error" error.
>>>      SELECT * FROM test;
>>> Since #2 makes a snapshot I got at #1 dirty, I expected to get
>>> "snapshot too old" error at #3 where I read test table again after
>>> enough time. But I could never get "snapshot too old" error at #3.
>> Here, the basic idea is that till the time corresponding page is not
>> pruned or table vacuuming hasn't triggered, this error won't occur.
>> So, I think what is happening here that during step #4 or step #3, it
>> has pruned the table, after which you started getting error.
> The pruning might be one factor.  Another possible issue is that
> effectively it doesn't start timing that 1 minute until the clock
> hits the start of the next minute (i.e., 0 seconds after the next
> minute).  The old_snapshot_threshold does not attempt to guarantee
> that the snapshot too old error will happen at the earliest
> opportunity, but that the error will *not* happen until the
> snapshot is *at least* that old.  Keep in mind that the expected
> useful values for this parameter are from a small number of hours
> to a day or two, depending on the workload.  The emphasis was on
> minimizing overhead, even when it meant the cleanup might not be
> quite as "eager" as it could otherwise be.

Thanks! I understood.
I've tested with autovacuum = off, so it has pruned the table at step #4.

When I set old_snapshot_threshold = 0 I got error at step #3, which
means that the error is occurred without table pruning.
We have regression test for this feature but it sets
old_snapshot_threshold = 0, I doubt about we can test it properly.
Am I missing something?


Masahiko Sawada
NTT Open Source Software Center

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to