Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> schrieb: >Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> The VACUUM implementation in 9.3 had several bugs: It removed >multixact >> xmax values without regard of the importance of contained xids, it >did >> not remove multixacts if the contained xids were too old and it >relied >> on hint bits when checking whether a row needed to be frozen which >might >> not have been set on replicas. > >Uh ... what does the last have to do with it? Surely we don't run >VACUUM on replicas. Or are you talking about what might happen when >VACUUM is run on a former replica that's been promoted to master?
Unfortunately not. The problem is that xl_heap_freeze's redo function simply reexecutes heap-freeze-tuple() instead of logging much about each tuple... Andres -- Please excuse brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone. Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
