Re: Temporary tables versus wraparound... again - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Greg Stark
Subject Re: Temporary tables versus wraparound... again
Date
Msg-id CAM-w4HNVtjSzZSTCcDECeTDFq3achdvJXPnJ_9f=H71mixVWvA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Temporary tables versus wraparound... again  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Temporary tables versus wraparound... again  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 6 Dec 2022 at 13:59, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2022-12-06 13:47:39 -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
> > So.... I talked about this patch with Ronan Dunklau and he had a good
> > question.... Why are we maintaining relfrozenxid and relminmxid in
> > pg_class for temporary tables at all? Autovacuum can't use them and
> > other sessions won't care about them. The only session that might care
> > about them is the one attached to the temp schema.
>
> Uh, without relfrozenxid for temp tables we can end up truncating clog
> "ranges" away that are required to access the temp tables. So this would
> basically mean that temp tables can't be used reliably anymore.

True, we would have to have some other mechanism for exporting the
frozenxid that the session needs. Presumably that would be something
in PGProc like the xmin and other numbers. It could be updated by
scanning our local hash table whenever a transaction starts. This also
probably is what would be needed for multixacts I guess?


-- 
greg



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Nathan Bossart
Date:
Subject: Re: predefined role(s) for VACUUM and ANALYZE
Next
From: Nathan Bossart
Date:
Subject: Re: predefined role(s) for VACUUM and ANALYZE