Re: VACUUM FULL FREEZE is unsafe - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

So why not have VACUUM FULL FREEZE just do what you propose: VACUUM 
FULL then VACUUM FREEZE.

-tfo    
--
Thomas F. O'Connell
Co-Founder, Information Architect
Sitening, LLC
http://www.sitening.com/
110 30th Avenue North, Suite 6
Nashville, TN 37203-6320
615-260-0005    

On Nov 27, 2004, at 3:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

> The point of VACUUM FREEZE is to ensure that there are no tuples
> present in the database whose commit status depends on "normal" XIDs.
> Without this guarantee, cloning template0 might stop working once
> the relevant part of pg_clog has been pruned.
>
> If one combines freezing with moving tuples across pages (ie,
> VACUUM FULL FREEZE), then the commit status of moved tuples may
> depend on the vacuum's own XID (stored in XVAC).  To maintain the
> freeze safety guarantee, we'd want to be sure that upon successful
> completion of the VACUUM, there are no moved tuples that haven't had
> their status hint bits updated to XMIN_COMMITTED or XMIN_INVALID.
>
> After some digging through vacuum.c, I have convinced myself that
> this does occur for all tuples moved down from the end of the table.
> update_hint_bits() takes care of all MOVED_IN rows; MOVED_OFF rows
> in the page that becomes the physically last page of the table are
> fixed near the bottom of repair_frag(); and MOVED_OFF rows in
> pages after that don't matter because we'll truncate those pages
> away entirely.
>
> Unfortunately this still leaves one case uncovered, which is a tuple
> that is moved because it is part of an update chain.  If an original
> tuple in an update chain is in a page that is below the new end of
> the table, and was not a move target page (eg because it had no free
> space), then that tuple will never be visited to change its state from
> MOVED_OFF to XMIN_INVALID.
>
> This doesn't break initdb, because there will be no update-chain cases
> since no other transactions can be running.  But it poses a nasty 
> hazard
> for anyone who is updating and re-freezing a template database during
> normal operations (as for example in following the manual bug fix
> procedures we had to recommend for some of the 7.4 dot releases).
>
> Also, even though I don't see any failure cases for initdb, it seems
> awfully risky to assume that this is all going to work 100%; and if
> initdb did leave any improperly frozen tuples behind, it's quite likely
> we'd not notice the error until the code got into the field.
>
> ISTM that the safer way to handle this is VACUUM FULL (to compact)
> and then VACUUM FREEZE (to freeze).  It's much clearer that lazy VACUUM
> can handle freezing reliably, because it never tries to move tuples
> around.
>
> Just doing this in initdb is a one-liner change, but I'm wondering if 
> we
> ought to enforce that FULL and FREEZE not be specified at the same 
> time,
> so that people couldn't risk such a problem in manual freezing of
> template databases.
>
>             regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of 
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
>                http://archives.postgresql.org