Re: POC: make mxidoff 64 bits
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
To: Maxim Orlov <orlovmg@gmail.com>
Cc: wenhui qiu <qiuwenhuifx@gmail.com>,
Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>,
Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-01-01T22:12:36Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Fix partial read handling in pg_upgrade's multixact conversion
- ac94ce8194e5 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Increase timeout in multixid_conversion upgrade test
- bd43940b02b2 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Improve sanity checks on multixid members length
- ecb553ae8211 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Clarify comment on multixid offset wraparound check
- 170361d7b869 14.21 landed
- b0b52b7123ae 15.16 landed
- 7d42e2367c6b 16.12 landed
- cd1a887fe9bf 17.8 landed
- 3fbad030a24d 18.2 landed
- 366dcdaf5779 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Never store 0 as the nextMXact
- 87a350e1f284 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Add runtime checks for bogus multixact offsets
- d4b7bde4183b 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Widen MultiXactOffset to 64 bits
- bd8d9c9bdfa0 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Move pg_multixact SLRU page format definitions to a separate header
- bb3b1c4f6462 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Convert confusing macros in multixact.c to static inline functions
- 0099b9408e8c 17.0 landed
-
Index SLRUs by 64-bit integers rather than by 32-bit integers
- 4ed8f0913bfd 17.0 cited
-
Cope with possible failure of the oldest MultiXact to exist.
- b6a3444fa635 9.4.4 cited
On 27/12/2024 19:09, Maxim Orlov wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 at 13:21, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi
> <mailto:hlinnaka@iki.fi>> wrote:
> Does the pg_upgrade code work though, if you have that buggy situation
> where oldestOffsetKnown == false ?
...
> >
> > if (!TransactionIdIsValid(*xactptr))
> > {
> > /* Corner case 3: we must be looking at
> unused slot zero */
> > Assert(offset == 0);
> > continue;
> > }
>
> After upgrade, this corner case 3 would *not* happen on offset == 0. So
> looks like we're still missing test coverage for this upgrade corner
> case.
>
> Am I understanding correctly that you want to have a test corresponding
> to the buggy 9.3 and 9.4 era versions?
No, those were two different things. I think there might be two things
wrong here:
1. I suspect pg_upgrade might not correctly handle the situation where
oldestOffsetKnown==false, and
2. The above assertion in "corner case 3" would not hold. It seems that
we don't have a test case for it, or it would've hit the assertion.
Now that I think about it, yes, a test case for 1. would be good too.
But I was talking about 2.
> Do you think we could imitate this scenario on a current master branch
> like that:
> 1) generate a couple of offsets segments for the first table;
> 2) generate more segments for a second table;
> 3) drop first table;
> 4) stop pg cluster;
> 5) remove pg_multixact/offsets/0000
> 6) upgrade?
I don't remember off the top of my head.
It might be best to just refuse the upgrade if oldestOffsetKnown==false.
It's a very ancient corner case. It seems reasonable to require you to
upgrade to a newer minor version and run VACUUM before upgrading. IIRC
that sets oldestOffsetKnown.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
Neon (https://neon.tech)