From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | kieran(dot)mccusker(at)gmail(dot)com |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #15350: Getting invalid cache ID: 11 Errors |
Date: | 2018-08-24 15:15:53 |
Message-ID: | 12945.1535123753@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
=?utf-8?q?PG_Bug_reporting_form?= <noreply(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> We're using 10.5 with parallel queries enabled and the config options
> #max_worker_processes = 8
> #max_parallel_workers_per_gather = 2
> #max_parallel_workers = 8
> I'm seeing invalid cache ID: 11 errors in the log. It's only happening
> occasionally (15 times today on a not very busy system).
Interesting. Syscache 11 would be AUTHOID, which seems to be consulted
mostly for privilege checks, though there's at least one reference
during process startup.
> I've been following
> the thread about making windowing functions et al parallel restricted - Is
> this another manifestation of the problem?
No, I don't think it's that. We've seen a couple of reports of similar
failures referencing cache 42, but this is a new symptom.
> I also don't see how to create a test case sorry.
Don't suppose you'd be prepared to recompile PG to turn that ERROR into
a PANIC, and then capture a stack trace from the core dump next time
it happens?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2018-08-24 15:42:43 | BUG #15351: to_date() function bug |
Previous Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2018-08-24 14:45:52 | BUG #15350: Getting invalid cache ID: 11 Errors |