On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 3:42 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> The "found xmin ... from before relfrozenxid ..." cases should all be
> fixable without needing such a function, and without it making fixing
> them significantly easier, no? As far as I understand your suggested
> solution, you need the tid(s) of these tuples, right? If you have those,
> I don't think it's meaningfully harder to INSERT ... DELETE WHERE ctid =
> .... or something like that.
>
> ISTM that the hard part is finding all problematic tuples in an
> efficient manner (i.e. that doesn't require one manual VACUUM for each
> individual block + parsing VACUUMs error message), not "fixing" those
> tuples.
I haven't tried the INSERT ... DELETE approach, but I've definitely
seen a case where a straight UPDATE did not fix the problem; VACUUM
continued failing afterwards. In that case, it was a system catalog
that was affected, and not one where TRUNCATE + re-INSERT was remotely
practical. The only solution I could come up with was to drop the
database and recreate it. Fortunately in that case the affected
database didn't seem to have any actual data in it, but if it had been
a 1TB database I think we would have been in really bad trouble.
Do you have a reason for believing that INSERT ... DELETE is going to
be better than UPDATE? It seems to me that either way you can end up
with a deleted and thus invisible tuple that you still can't get rid
of.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
