On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 10:01:05AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 09:01:18PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 05:47:18PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > > > I could perhaps see corruption happening if pg_control's oldest xid
> > > > value was closer
On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 09:01:18PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 05:47:18PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > > I could perhaps see corruption happening if pg_control's oldest xid
> > > value was closer to the current xid value than it should be, but I can't
> > > see how
On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 05:47:18PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > I could perhaps see corruption happening if pg_control's oldest xid
> > value was closer to the current xid value than it should be, but I can't
> > see how having it 2-billion away could cause harm, unless perhaps
> > pg_upgrade
On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 5:08 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> However, I am now stuck on the commit message text, and I think this is
> the point Peter Geoghegan was trying to make earlier --- while we know
> that preserving the oldest xid in pg_control is the right thing to do,
> and that setting it to
On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 09:51:47AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 08:11:14AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Also, the pg_upgrade status message still seems to be misplaced:
> >
> > In 20210706190612.gm22...@telsasoft.com, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > I re-arranged the
On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 08:11:14AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Also, the pg_upgrade status message still seems to be misplaced:
>
> In 20210706190612.gm22...@telsasoft.com, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > I re-arranged the pg_upgrade output of that patch: it was in the middle of
> > the
> > two
Also, the pg_upgrade status message still seems to be misplaced:
In 20210706190612.gm22...@telsasoft.com, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> I re-arranged the pg_upgrade output of that patch: it was in the middle of the
> two halves: "Setting next transaction ID and epoch for new cluster"
+++
On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 07:35:58AM +0200, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> Thanks for having looked at it.
>
> It looks good to me, but i have one question:
>
> + printf(_(" -u, --oldest-transaction-id=XID set oldest transaction
> ID\n"));
>
> and
>
> + if
On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 08:36:13PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 06:49:10PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > My point is that there are a lot internals involved here that are not
> > part of pg_upgrade, though it probably only affects pg_upgrade. Anyway,
> > Bertrand patch
On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 06:49:10PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 03:46:48PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 3:30 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Yes, I can, though it seems like a much bigger issue than pg_upgrade.
> > > I will be glad to dig into
On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 3:49 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> My point is that there are a lot internals involved here that are not
> part of pg_upgrade, though it probably only affects pg_upgrade. Anyway,
> Bertrand patch seems to have what I need.
I was confused by your remarks because I am kind of
On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 03:46:48PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 3:30 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Yes, I can, though it seems like a much bigger issue than pg_upgrade.
> > I will be glad to dig into it.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by that. Technically this would be an
On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 06:30:41PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 02:27:34PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > > BTW, is it really necessary for copy_xact_xlog_xid to invoke pg_resetwal
> > > so many times? Why can't we pass all of the update-this options in one
> > > call?
On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 3:30 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Yes, I can, though it seems like a much bigger issue than pg_upgrade.
> I will be glad to dig into it.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Technically this would be an issue
for any program that uses "pg_resetwal -x" in the way that
On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 02:27:34PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > BTW, is it really necessary for copy_xact_xlog_xid to invoke pg_resetwal
> > so many times? Why can't we pass all of the update-this options in one
> > call?
>
> No opinion here.
>
> > Who's going to do the legwork on this?
>
On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 3:12 PM Mark Dilger wrote:
> Thanks, Peter, for drawing my attention to this. I had already been
> following this thread, but had not yet thought about the problem in terms of
> amcheck.
>
> I will investigate possible solutions in verify_heapam().
Thanks! Great that we
> On Jul 6, 2021, at 2:27 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> It looks like amcheck's verify_heapam.c functionality almost catches
> bugs like this one. Something for Mark (CC'd) to consider. Does it
> matter that we usually "ctx.oldest_xid = ctx.relfrozenxid", and so
> usually use
On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 11:57 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Geoghegan writes:
> > ... We should just carry forward the original oldestXid.
>
> Yup. It's a bit silly that we recognized the need to do that
> for oldestMultiXid yet not for oldestXid.
True. But at the same time it somehow doesn't seem
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> ... We should just carry forward the original oldestXid.
Yup. It's a bit silly that we recognized the need to do that
for oldestMultiXid yet not for oldestXid.
BTW, is it really necessary for copy_xact_xlog_xid to invoke pg_resetwal
so many times? Why can't we pass
On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 10:58 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Well, pg_upgrade corruptions are rare, but so is modifying
> autovacuum_freeze_max_age. If we have a corruption and we know
> autovacuum_freeze_max_age was modified, odds are that is the cause.
My point is that there isn't necessarily that
On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 10:32:24AM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 10:27 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > OK, this is confirmation that the pg_resetwal bug, and its use by
> > pg_upgrade, is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. I am
> > prepared to work on it now.
>
>
On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 10:27 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> OK, this is confirmation that the pg_resetwal bug, and its use by
> pg_upgrade, is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. I am
> prepared to work on it now.
To be clear, I'm not 100% sure that this is related to the pg_upgrade
+
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 10:28:25PM +, Floris Van Nee wrote:
> >
> > I wonder if it's related to this issue:
> >
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-
> > id/20210423234256.hwopuftipdmp3...@alap3.anarazel.de
> >
> > Have you increased autovacuum_freeze_max_age from its default? This
> >
>
> I wonder if it's related to this issue:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-
> id/20210423234256.hwopuftipdmp3...@alap3.anarazel.de
>
> Have you increased autovacuum_freeze_max_age from its default? This
> already sounds like the kind of database where that would make sense.
>
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 2:26 PM Floris Van Nee wrote:
> > Have you ever used pg_upgrade on this database?
> >
>
> Yes. The last time (from v11 to v12) was in October 2020. The transaction id
> in the tuples (the one PG is trying to check in the tx log) dated from
> February 2021. I do believe
> On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 1:44 PM Floris Van Nee
> wrote:
> > We recently ran into an issue where the visibility map of a relation was
> corrupt, running Postgres 12.4. The error we'd get when running a SELECT *
> from this table is:
> >
> > could not access status of transaction 3704450152
> >
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 1:44 PM Floris Van Nee wrote:
> We recently ran into an issue where the visibility map of a relation was
> corrupt, running Postgres 12.4. The error we'd get when running a SELECT *
> from this table is:
>
> could not access status of transaction 3704450152
> DETAIL:
Hi hackers,
We recently ran into an issue where the visibility map of a relation was
corrupt, running Postgres 12.4. The error we'd get when running a SELECT * from
this table is:
could not access status of transaction 3704450152
DETAIL: Could not open file "pg_xact/0DCC": No such file or
28 matches
Mail list logo
