Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 03:42:14PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > > I still don't know under what circumstances this situation could arise. > > > > This seems most strange to me. I would wonder about this to be just > > > > papering over a different bug elsewhere, except that we know this tuple > > > > comes from a pg_upgraded table and so I think the only real solution is > > > > to cope. > > > > > > Shouldn't we log something at least if we are unsure of the cause? > > > > I don't know. Is it possible that XMAX_IS_MULTI got set because of > > cosmic rays? At this point that's the only explanation that makes sense > > to me. And I'm not sure what to do about this until we know more -- > > more user reports of this problem, for instance. > > > > I don't see any reasonable way to distinguish this particular kind of > > multixact-out-of-bounds situation from any other, so not sure what else > > to log either (you can see that we already emit an error message.) > > I guess I am lost then. I thought it supressed the error. What does > the patch do?
You're right, it does. I am not sure I would apply it. -- Álvaro Herrera 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
