On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 09:59 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
>> However, is it safe to use GetOldestXMin() during recovery? Or to put it
>> other way, is GetOldestXMin() functioning correctly during hot standby?
>> It only scans through the P
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 09:59 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> However, is it safe to use GetOldestXMin() during recovery? Or to put it
> other way, is GetOldestXMin() functioning correctly during hot standby?
> It only scans through the ProcArray, but not the known-assigned xids
> array. That
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 09:59 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 27/08/10 20:17, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > Yes. StartupXLOG calls that before bgwriter is invoked. That is, we can
> > ensure that StartupSUBTRANS has always been done before bgwriter
> > performs a restartpoint.
>
> Hmm, the comment in
On 27/08/10 20:17, Fujii Masao wrote:
Yes. StartupXLOG calls that before bgwriter is invoked. That is, we can
ensure that StartupSUBTRANS has always been done before bgwriter
performs a restartpoint.
Hmm, the comment in CreateCheckpoint() isn't totally accurate either:
* Truncate pg_subtrans
Josh Berkus writes:
> Should we hold off on RC1 for this issue?
rc1 was already wrapped yesterday.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hack
On 8/27/10 10:17 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 2:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Fujii Masao writes:
>>> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
>>> wrote:
Hmm, agreed, seems like an oversight in hot standby. Before that, we didn't
update pg_subtrans during re
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 2:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Fujii Masao writes:
>> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> wrote:
>>> Hmm, agreed, seems like an oversight in hot standby. Before that, we didn't
>>> update pg_subtrans during recovery, so there was no point truncating it. Bu
Fujii Masao writes:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> wrote:
>> Hmm, agreed, seems like an oversight in hot standby. Before that, we didn't
>> update pg_subtrans during recovery, so there was no point truncating it. But
>> in hot standby, we do update it, so we need to trun
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> Hmm, agreed, seems like an oversight in hot standby. Before that, we didn't
> update pg_subtrans during recovery, so there was no point truncating it. But
> in hot standby, we do update it, so we need to truncate it too.
Yes. The attac
On 27/08/10 16:39, Fujii Masao wrote:
I received the off-list email reporting that pg_subtrans keeps bloating up
in the standby, from Harald (Thanks!). I investigated this issue and found
that the standby doesn't truncate pg_subtrans at all even though HS keeps
extending it. In the master, a chec
10 matches
Mail list logo