On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> BTW I think the definition of HeapTupleHeaderXminFrozen is seriously
>> confusing, by failing to return true if the xmin is numerically
>> FrozenXid (which it'll be if the database was pg_upgraded). I wonder
>> about this one in HeapTupleSa
On 2018-05-24 16:46:24 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-May-24, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > On 2018-05-24 13:08:53 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > Hmm .. surely
>
> > > xid = HeapTupleHeaderGetXmin(tuple);
> > > xmin_frozen = ((xid == FrozenTransactionId) ||
> > >
On 2018-05-24 17:13:11 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-May-24, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > On 2018-05-24 16:49:40 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > BTW is it just a coincidence or are all the affected tables pg_authid?
> > > Maybe the problem is shared relations ..? Maybe the fact that the
On 2018-May-24, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-05-24 16:49:40 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > BTW is it just a coincidence or are all the affected tables pg_authid?
> > Maybe the problem is shared relations ..? Maybe the fact that they have
> > separate relfrozenxid (!?) in different databases?
On 2018-05-24 16:49:40 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> BTW is it just a coincidence or are all the affected tables pg_authid?
> Maybe the problem is shared relations ..? Maybe the fact that they have
> separate relfrozenxid (!?) in different databases?
Yes, that appears to be part of the problem.
>
> BTW is it just a coincidence or are all the affected tables pg_authid?
> Maybe the problem is shared relations ..? Maybe the fact that they have
> separate relfrozenxid (!?) in different databases?
>
> --
> Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24
On 2018-May-24, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-05-24 13:08:53 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Hmm .. surely
> > xid = HeapTupleHeaderGetXmin(tuple);
> > xmin_frozen = ((xid == FrozenTransactionId) ||
> >HeapTupleHeaderXminFrozen(tuple));
> > - if (Transa
On 2018-May-24, Andres Freund wrote:
> FWIW, even if that weren't the case: a) there'd be a lot more wrong with
> this routine imo. b) some of the tuples affected clearly weren't
> frozen...
Right.
BTW is it just a coincidence or are all the affected tables pg_authid?
Maybe the problem is shared
On 2018-05-24 13:30:54 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-05-24 13:08:53 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Hmm .. surely
> >
> > diff --git a/src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c
> > b/src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c
> > index 5016181fd7..5d7fa1fb45 100644
> > --- a/src/backend/access/heap/heapam.
On 2018-05-24 13:08:53 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Hmm .. surely
>
> diff --git a/src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c
> b/src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c
> index 5016181fd7..5d7fa1fb45 100644
> --- a/src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c
> +++ b/src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c
> @@ -6690,7 +6690,7 @
Hmm .. surely
diff --git a/src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c b/src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c
index 5016181fd7..5d7fa1fb45 100644
--- a/src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c
+++ b/src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c
@@ -6690,7 +6690,7 @@ heap_prepare_freeze_tuple(HeapTupleHeader tuple,
xid = Heap
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 12:38 PM, Maxim Boguk wrote:
>
>
>>
>> > About gdb bt - it's tricky because it is mission critical master db of
>> > huge project.
>> > I'll will try promote backup replica and check is issue persist there
>> and
>> > if yes - we will have our playground for a while, but
>
>
> > About gdb bt - it's tricky because it is mission critical master db of
> > huge project.
> > I'll will try promote backup replica and check is issue persist there and
> > if yes - we will have our playground for a while, but it will require
> > sometime to arrange.
>
> You should be ok to
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 2:42 PM, Maxim Boguk wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 10:30 PM, Andres Freund
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2018-05-22 22:18:15 +0300, Maxim Boguk wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 9:47 PM, Andres Freund
>> wrote:
>> > > > select relfrozenxid from pg_class where reln
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 10:30 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-05-22 22:18:15 +0300, Maxim Boguk wrote:
> > On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 9:47 PM, Andres Freund
> wrote:
> > > > select relfrozenxid from pg_class where relname='pg_authid';
> > > > relfrozenxid
> > > > --
> > > >
Hi,
On 2018-05-22 22:18:15 +0300, Maxim Boguk wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 9:47 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > select relfrozenxid from pg_class where relname='pg_authid';
> > > relfrozenxid
> > > --
> > >2863429136
> select txid_current();
> txid_current
> --
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 9:47 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-05-22 21:30:43 +0300, Maxim Boguk wrote:
> > For sample:
> >
> > postgres=# vacuum pg_catalog.pg_authid;
> > ERROR: found xmin 2894889518 from before relfrozenxid 248712603
> >
> > select ctid, xmin, xmax, cmin, cmax from p
Hi,
On 2018-05-22 21:30:43 +0300, Maxim Boguk wrote:
> For sample:
>
> postgres=# vacuum pg_catalog.pg_authid;
> ERROR: found xmin 2894889518 from before relfrozenxid 248712603
>
> select ctid, xmin, xmax, cmin, cmax from pg_catalog.pg_authid where
> xmin::text::bigint=2894889518;
> ctid |
Hi Andres,
>
> > Looking for possible course of action.
> > Probably simplest fix - drop and recreate these 6 affected users, but so
> > far I willing spent some time research into this issue.
>
> Could you use pageinspect to get the infomasks for the affected tuples?
>
> Greetings,
>
> Andres
On 2018-05-15 11:06:38 +0200, Maxim Boguk wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I just got the same issue on 9.6.8:
>
> 2018-05-15 11:52:01 MSK 33558 @ from [vxid:317/92895305 txid:0] [] ERROR:
> found xmin 2808837517 from before relfrozenxid 248712603
> 2018-05-15 11:52:01 MSK 33558 @ from [vxid:317/9289
Hi everyone,
I just got the same issue on 9.6.8:
2018-05-15 11:52:01 MSK 33558 @ from [vxid:317/92895305 txid:0] [] ERROR:
found xmin 2808837517 from before relfrozenxid 248712603
2018-05-15 11:52:01 MSK 33558 @ from [vxid:317/92895305 txid:0] []
CONTEXT: automatic vacuum of table "template0.
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Jeremy Finzel wrote:
> I am running this on a san snapshot of our production system. I assume that
> this will give me a valid check for file-system-level corruption. I am
> going to kick it off and see if I find anything interesting.
It might. Note that SAN sna
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 3:20 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:27 PM, Jeremy Finzel wrote:
> > Thank you for the recommendation. I ran both amcheck functions on all 4
> > indexes of those 2 tables with heapallindexed = true, but no issues were
> > found.
>
> Probably would
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:27 PM, Jeremy Finzel wrote:
> Thank you for the recommendation. I ran both amcheck functions on all 4
> indexes of those 2 tables with heapallindexed = true, but no issues were
> found.
Probably wouldn't hurt to run it against all indexes, if you can make
time for that
I admit I'm pretty surprised by this whole episode. I have no useful
advice to offer here.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 4:29 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Jeremy Finzel wrote:
> > A server restart and upgrade to 9.5.12 (at the same time), as expected,
> made
> > the issue go away. Still doesn't give us any answers as to what
> happened or
> > if it would ha
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Jeremy Finzel wrote:
> A server restart and upgrade to 9.5.12 (at the same time), as expected, made
> the issue go away. Still doesn't give us any answers as to what happened or
> if it would happen again! Thanks for the feeback.
You may still want to use amchec
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 11:19 AM, Jeremy Finzel wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 3:55 PM, Jeremy Finzel wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 1:01 PM, Jeremy Finzel
>>> wrote:
>>> > SELECT heap_page_items(get_raw_page('pg_a
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 3:55 PM, Jeremy Finzel wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 1:01 PM, Jeremy Finzel wrote:
>> > SELECT heap_page_items(get_raw_page('pg_authid', 7));
>>
>> Can you post this?
>>
>> SELECT * FROM page_header(get_
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 4:12 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 1:55 PM, Jeremy Finzel wrote:
> > @Peter :
> >
> > staging=# SELECT * FROM page_header(get_raw_page('pg_authid', 7));
> > lsn | checksum | flags | lower | upper | special | pagesize |
> > version | prun
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 1:55 PM, Jeremy Finzel wrote:
> @Peter :
>
> staging=# SELECT * FROM page_header(get_raw_page('pg_authid', 7));
> lsn | checksum | flags | lower | upper | special | pagesize |
> version | prune_xid
> +--+---+---+---+-+
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 1:01 PM, Jeremy Finzel wrote:
> > SELECT heap_page_items(get_raw_page('pg_authid', 7));
>
> Can you post this?
>
> SELECT * FROM page_header(get_raw_page('pg_authid', 7));
>
> --
> Peter Geoghegan
>
@Peter :
stag
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 1:01 PM, Jeremy Finzel wrote:
> SELECT heap_page_items(get_raw_page('pg_authid', 7));
Can you post this?
SELECT * FROM page_header(get_raw_page('pg_authid', 7));
--
Peter Geoghegan
Hi,
On 2018-03-19 15:37:51 -0500, Jeremy Finzel wrote:
> Does the fact that a snapshot does not have this issue suggest it could be
> memory-related corruption and a db restart could clear it up?
Could you show the page from the snapshot? I suspect it might just be a
problem that's temporarily no
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 3:01 PM, Jeremy Finzel wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2018-03-19 14:53:58 -0500, Jeremy Finzel wrote:
>> > FWIW, if I remove the last filter, I get these rows and I believe row
>> 7/57/
>> > 2906288382 is the one gener
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-03-19 14:53:58 -0500, Jeremy Finzel wrote:
> > FWIW, if I remove the last filter, I get these rows and I believe row
> 7/57/
> > 2906288382 is the one generating error:
>
> Oh, yea, that makes sense. It's wrapped around and l
Hi,
On 2018-03-19 14:53:58 -0500, Jeremy Finzel wrote:
> FWIW, if I remove the last filter, I get these rows and I believe row 7/57/
> 2906288382 is the one generating error:
Oh, yea, that makes sense. It's wrapped around and looks like it's from
the future.
> SELECT * FROM check_rel('pg_authid'
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:41 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-03-19 14:37:24 -0500, Jeremy Finzel wrote:
> > We upgraded to 9.5.5, and today we are running 9.5.11. And actually we
> > upgraded from 9.3, not 9.4. We are still trying to figure out which
> point
> > release we were on at 9.3.
>
On 2018-03-19 14:37:24 -0500, Jeremy Finzel wrote:
> We upgraded to 9.5.5, and today we are running 9.5.11. And actually we
> upgraded from 9.3, not 9.4. We are still trying to figure out which point
> release we were on at 9.3.
Ok. IIRC there used to be a bug a few years back that sometimes le
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 1:17 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi Jeremy, Alvaro,
>
> On 2018-03-19 13:00:13 -0500, Jeremy Finzel wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Alvaro Herrera <
> alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Jeremy Finzel wrote:
> > > > Getting some concerning errors in o
Hi Jeremy, Alvaro,
On 2018-03-19 13:00:13 -0500, Jeremy Finzel wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>
> > Jeremy Finzel wrote:
> > > Getting some concerning errors in one of our databases that is on 9.5.11,
> > > on autovacuum from template0 database pg_authid and p
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Jeremy Finzel wrote:
> > Getting some concerning errors in one of our databases that is on 9.5.11,
> > on autovacuum from template0 database pg_authid and pg_auth_members. I
> > only saw some notes on the list about this error related to
pg_control version number:942
Catalog version number: 201510051
Database system identifier: 6351536019599012028
Database cluster state: in production
pg_control last modified: Mon 19 Mar 2018 12:56:10 PM CDT
Latest checkpoint location:
Jeremy Finzel wrote:
> Getting some concerning errors in one of our databases that is on 9.5.11,
> on autovacuum from template0 database pg_authid and pg_auth_members. I
> only saw some notes on the list about this error related to materialized
> views. FWIW, we did use pg_upgrade to upgrade this
Getting some concerning errors in one of our databases that is on 9.5.11,
on autovacuum from template0 database pg_authid and pg_auth_members. I
only saw some notes on the list about this error related to materialized
views. FWIW, we did use pg_upgrade to upgrade this database from 9.4 to
9.5. H
45 matches
Mail list logo
