Re: Bug report: Dramatic increase in conflict with recovery after upgrading 10.2->10.5

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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().