On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 02:57:13PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> 1) means more test cycles, and perhaps we could enforce compression of
> WAL while on it? At the end, my vote would just go for 3) and drop
> the whole scenario, though there may be an argument in 1).
And actually I was under the
On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 12:02:23AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> My thoughts were trending in that direction too. It's starting
> to sound like we aren't going to be able to make a fix that
> we'd be willing to risk back-patching, even if it were completely
> compatible at the user level.
>
> Still, t
Thomas Munro writes:
> Reading Andres's comments and realising how relatively young
> txid_status() is compared to txid_current(), I'm now wondering if we
> shouldn't just disclaim the whole thing in back branches.
My thoughts were trending in that direction too. It's starting
to sound like we a
On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 4:57 PM Andrey Borodin wrote:
> It's not trustworthy anyway. Xid wraparound might happen during
> reconnect. I suspect we can design a test that will show that it does
> not always show correct results during xid->2pc conversion (there is a
> point in time when xid is not i
Hi,
On 2023-01-27 19:57:35 -0800, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 7:40 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > What are you using it for, that you don't care whether the answer
> > is trustworthy?
> >
>
> It's not trustworthy anyway. Xid wraparound might happen during
> reconnect.
I think th
Hi,
On 2023-01-27 19:49:17 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> It's quite commonly used as part of trigger based replication tools (IIRC
> that's its origin), monitoring, as part of client side logging, as part of
> snapshot management.
Forgot one: Queues.
The way it's used for trigger based replicati
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 7:40 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> What are you using it for, that you don't care whether the answer
> is trustworthy?
>
It's not trustworthy anyway. Xid wraparound might happen during
reconnect. I suspect we can design a test that will show that it does
not always show correct r
Hi,
On 2023-01-27 22:39:56 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2023-01-28 11:38:50 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> FWIW, my vote goes for a more expensive but reliable function even in
> >> stable branches.
>
> > I very strenuously object. If we make txid_current() (by way o
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2023-01-28 11:38:50 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> FWIW, my vote goes for a more expensive but reliable function even in
>> stable branches.
> I very strenuously object. If we make txid_current() (by way of
> pg_current_xact_id()) flush WAL, we'll cause outages.
What
Hi,
On 2023-01-28 11:38:50 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 06:06:05AM +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > On Fri, 2023-01-27 at 16:15 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> >> There is no
> >> doubt that the current situation is unacceptable, though, so maybe we
> >> really should just do
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023, 18:58 Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2023-01-27 16:15:08 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > It would be pg_current_xact_id() that would have to pay the cost of
> > the WAL flush, not pg_xact_status() itself, but yeah that's what the
> > patch does (with some optimisations).
Hi,
On 2023-01-27 16:15:08 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> It would be pg_current_xact_id() that would have to pay the cost of
> the WAL flush, not pg_xact_status() itself, but yeah that's what the
> patch does (with some optimisations). I guess one question is whether
> there are any other reasonab
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 06:06:05AM +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-01-27 at 16:15 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> There is no
>> doubt that the current situation is unacceptable, though, so maybe we
>> really should just do it and make a faster one later. Anyone else
>> want to vote on thi
On Fri, 2023-01-27 at 16:15 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 3:04 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > Thomas Munro writes:
> > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 1:30 PM Michael Paquier
> > > wrote:
> > > > My opinion would be to make this function more reliable, FWIW, even if
> > > > that involv
Thomas Munro writes:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 3:04 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think we need to get the thing correct first and worry about
>> performance later. What's wrong with simply making pg_xact_status
>> write and flush a record of the XID's existence before returning it?
>> Yeah, it will c
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 3:04 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Munro writes:
> > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 1:30 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> My opinion would be to make this function more reliable, FWIW, even if
> >> that involves a performance impact when called in a close loop by
> >> forcing more W
Thomas Munro writes:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 1:30 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>> My opinion would be to make this function more reliable, FWIW, even if
>> that involves a performance impact when called in a close loop by
>> forcing more WAL flushes to ensure its report durability and
>> consisten
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 1:30 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 04:14:57PM -0800, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> > If we agree that xid allocation is not something persistent, let's fix
> > the test? We can replace a check with select * from pg_class or,
> > maybe, add an amcheck run.
>
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 04:14:57PM -0800, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> If we agree that xid allocation is not something persistent, let's fix
> the test? We can replace a check with select * from pg_class or,
> maybe, add an amcheck run.
> As far as I recollect, this test was introduced to test this new
Andrey Borodin writes:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 3:04 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Indeed, it seems like this behavior makes pg_xact_status() basically
>> useless as things stand.
> If we agree that xid allocation is not something persistent, let's fix
> the test?
If we're not going to fix this behavi
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 3:04 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Indeed, it seems like this behavior makes pg_xact_status() basically
> useless as things stand.
>
If we agree that xid allocation is not something persistent, let's fix
the test? We can replace a check with select * from pg_class or,
maybe, add
Thomas Munro writes:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 11:14 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> If any tuples made by that transaction had reached disk,
>> we'd have a problem.
> The problem is that the WAL wasn't flushed, allowing the same xid to
> be allocated again after crash recovery. But for any data pages to
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 11:14 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrey Borodin writes:
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 12:12 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> That test case is demonstrating fundamental
> >> database corruption after a crash.
>
> > Not exactly corruption. XID was not persisted and buffer data did not
> >
Andrey Borodin writes:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 12:12 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> That test case is demonstrating fundamental
>> database corruption after a crash.
> Not exactly corruption. XID was not persisted and buffer data did not
> hit a disk. Database is in the correct state.
Really? I don't
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 12:12 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> That test case is demonstrating fundamental
> database corruption after a crash.
>
Not exactly corruption. XID was not persisted and buffer data did not
hit a disk. Database is in the correct state.
It was discussed long before WAL compression
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 02:08:27PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 02:43:29PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > The symptom being exhibited by Michael's new BF animal tanager
> > is perfectly reproducible elsewhere.
>
> I think these tests have always failed with wal_compression ?
>
Justin Pryzby writes:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 02:43:29PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The symptom being exhibited by Michael's new BF animal tanager
>> is perfectly reproducible elsewhere.
> I think these tests have always failed with wal_compression ?
If that's a known problem, and we've done no
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 02:43:29PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> The symptom being exhibited by Michael's new BF animal tanager
> is perfectly reproducible elsewhere.
I think these tests have always failed with wal_compression ?
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210308.173242.463790587797836129.
28 matches
Mail list logo
