Re: [HACKERS] Re: 9.4.1 -> 9.4.2 problem: could not access status of transaction 1 - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Re: 9.4.1 -> 9.4.2 problem: could not access status of transaction 1
Date
Msg-id 20150602212255.GW30287@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Re: 9.4.1 -> 9.4.2 problem: could not access status of transaction 1  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Re: 9.4.1 -> 9.4.2 problem: could not access status of transaction 1  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-general
> > Hm. If GetOldestMultiXactOnDisk() gets the starting point by scanning
> > the disk it'll always get one at a segment boundary, right? I'm not sure
> > that's actually ok; because the value at the beginning of the segment
> > can very well end up being a 0, as MaybeExtendOffsetSlru() will have
> > filled the page with zeros.
> >
> > I think that should be harmless, the worst that can happen is that
> > oldestOffset errorneously is 0, which should be correct, even though
> > possibly overly conservative, in these cases.
>
> Uh oh.  That seems like a real bad problem for this approach.  What
> keeps that from being the opposite of too conservative?  There's no
> "safe" value in a circular numbering space.

I think it *might* (I'm really jetlagged) be fine because that'll only
happen after a upgrade from < 9.3. And in that case we initialize
nextOffset to 0. That ought to safe us?

Greetings,

Andres Freund


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: 9.4.1 -> 9.4.2 problem: could not access status of transaction 1
Next
From: Adrian Klaver
Date:
Subject: Re: postgres db permissions