Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade
Date
Msg-id 2684751.1659468725@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade  ("Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>)
Responses Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade
Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade
List pgsql-hackers
"Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org> writes:
> On 8/2/22 1:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Sadly, we're still not out of the woods.  I see three buildfarm
>> failures in this test since Robert resolved the "-X" problem [1][2][3]:

> Looking at the test code, is there anything that could have changed the 
> relfrozenxid or relminxid independently of the test on these systems?

Hmmm ... now that you mention it, I see nothing in 002_pg_upgrade.pl
that attempts to turn off autovacuum on either the source server or
the destination.  So one plausible theory is that autovac moved the
numbers since we checked.

If that is the explanation, then it leaves us with few good options.
I am not in favor of disabling autovacuum in the test: ordinary
users are not going to do that while pg_upgrade'ing, so it'd make
the test less representative of real-world usage, which seems like
a bad idea.  We could either drop this particular check again, or
weaken it to allow new relfrozenxid >= old relfrozenxid, likewise
relminxid.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Jonathan S. Katz"
Date:
Subject: Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade
Next
From: Zhihong Yu
Date:
Subject: Re: Add proper planner support for ORDER BY / DISTINCT aggregates