| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: PANIC: invalid index offnum: 186 when processing BRIN indexes in VACUUM |
| Date: | 2017-11-01 16:15:47 |
| Message-ID: | 20171101161547.64hf4zssicrgkeaf@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> > FWIW I can reproduce this on 9.5, and I don't even need to run the
> > UPDATE part. That is, INSERT + VACUUM running concurrently is enough to
> > produce broken BRIN indexes :-(
>
> Hmm, I'm pretty sure we stress-tested brin in pretty much the same way.
> But I see this misbehavior too. Looking ...
Turns out that this is related to concurrent growth of the table while
the summarization process is scanning -- so new pages have appeared at
the end of the table after the end point has been determined. It would
be a pain to determine number of blocks for each range, so I'm looking
for a simple way to fix it without imposing so much overhead.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nico Williams | 2017-11-01 16:56:20 | Mapping MERGE onto CTEs (Re: MERGE SQL Statement for PG11) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-11-01 15:11:54 | Re: Account for cost and selectivity of HAVING quals |