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 daveg@sonic.net 510 536 1443 510 282 0869
If simplicity worked, the world would be overrun with insects.
