On 2013-11-28 14:10:43 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > Instead of calculating the multixact cutoff xid by using the global
> > minimum of OldestMemberMXactId[] and OldestVisibleMXactId[] and then
> > subtracting vacuum_freeze_min_age compute it solely as the minimum of
>
Andres Freund wrote:
> Instead of calculating the multixact cutoff xid by using the global
> minimum of OldestMemberMXactId[] and OldestVisibleMXactId[] and then
> subtracting vacuum_freeze_min_age compute it solely as the minimum of
> OldestMemberMXactId[]. If we do that computation *after* doing
On 2013-11-28 16:28:53 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> My current thoughts are that we need to check whether any member of a
> multixact needs freezing. If we find one we do MultiXactIdIsRunning() &&
> MultiXactIdWait() if!InRecovery. That's pretty unlikely to be necessary,
> but afaics we cannot gua
Hello,
Investigating corruption in a client's database we unfortunately found
another data corrupting bug that's relevant for 9.3+:
Since 9.3 heap_tuple_needs_freeze() and heap_freeze_tuple() don't
correctly handle the xids contained in a multixact. They separately do a
check for their respective
