From: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)adjust(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Bug report: Dramatic increase in conflict with recovery after upgrading 10.2->10.5 |
Date: | 2018-09-11 15:22:37 |
Message-ID: | 20180911152237.GA13481@telsasoft.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 11:43:47AM +0200, Chris Travers wrote:
> At present I believe this to likely be a regression. But if nobody else
> knows otherwise, I should know more in a couple days.
Do you have query logs or can you send details of the query ?
We're not using replication, but I can't help but think of this:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20180829140149.GO23024%40telsasoft.com
..since it's effectively a regression WRT reliability (at least if you reindex
pg_class). Tom has a patch in HEAD to avoid the issue, but I don't know if
there's any plan to release 10.6 until november.
See related, earlier thread:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/12259.1532117714%40sss.pgh.pa.us
You could compile your own binaries with Tom's patch applied (f868a81).
As you probably know, it's maybe not safe to install PG10.4 binaries on a data
dir where you've already upgraded to 10.5 (I believe because data file content
might be written which may not be handled correctly by earlier minor release).
Justin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2018-09-11 15:23:44 | Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily |
Previous Message | Arthur Zakirov | 2018-09-11 15:18:30 | Re: [HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp(). |