Re: recovering from "found xmin ... from before relfrozenxid ..."
Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com>
From: Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>, "Andrey M. Borodin" <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>,
MBeena Emerson <mbeena.emerson@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>,
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Date: 2020-09-16T05:48:46Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Attachments
- v2-fix-regression-pg_surgey.patch (text/x-patch) patch v2
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 10:40 AM Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 9:14 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > > Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 1:25 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > >> * Should any of the other tables in the test be converted to temp? > > > > > Are you trying to say that we can achieve the things being done in > > > test-case 1 and 2 by having a single temp table and we should aim for > > > it because it will make the test-case more efficient and easy to > > > maintain? > > > > Well, I'm just looking at the comment that says the reason for the > > begin/rollback structure is to keep autovacuum's hands off the table. > > In most if not all of the other places where we need that, the preferred > > method is to make the table temp or mark it with (autovacuum = off). > > While this way isn't wrong exactly, nor inefficient, it does seem > > a little restrictive. For instance, you can't easily test cases that > > involve intentional errors. > > > > Another point is that we have a few optimizations that apply to tables > > created in the current transaction. I'm not sure whether any of them > > would fire in this test case, but if they do (now or in the future) > > that might mean you aren't testing the usual scenario for use of > > pg_surgery, which is surely not going to be a new-in-transaction > > table. (That might be an argument for preferring autovacuum = off > > over a temp table, too.) > > > > I agree with you on both the above points. I'll try to make the > necessary changes to address all your comments. Also, I'd prefer > creating a normal heap table with autovacuum = off over the temp table > for the reasons you mentioned in the second point. > Attached is the patch with the changes suggested here. I've tried to use a normal heap table with (autovacuum = off) wherever possible. Please have a look and let me know for any other issues. Thanks, -- With Regards, Ashutosh Sharma EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com
Commits
-
Fix wrong data table horizon computation during backend startup.
- 1c7675a7a426 14.0 landed
-
Centralize horizon determination for temp tables, fixing bug due to skew.
- 94bc27b57680 14.0 landed
-
pg_surgery: Try to stabilize regression tests.
- 0811f766fd74 14.0 landed
-
New contrib module, pg_surgery, with heap surgery functions.
- 34a947ca13e5 14.0 landed
-
Set cutoff xmin more aggressively when vacuuming a temporary table.
- a7212be8b9e0 14.0 cited
-
snapshot scalability: Don't compute global horizons while building snapshots.
- dc7420c2c927 14.0 cited
-
Introduce vacuum errcontext to display additional information.
- b61d161c1463 13.0 cited