| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Parag Paul <parag(dot)paul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Issue with the PRNG used by Postgres |
| Date: | 2024-04-10 17:03:43 |
| Message-ID: | 20240410170343.436rxpf2ouyjdb7n@awork3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2024-04-10 09:48:42 -0700, Parag Paul wrote:
> Yes, the probability of this happening is astronomical, but in production
> with 128 core servers with 7000 max_connections, with petabyte scale data,
> this did repro 2 times in the last month. We had to move to a local
> approach to manager our ratelimiting counters.
What version of PG was this? I think it's much more likely that you're
hitting a bug that caused a lot more contention inside lwlocks. That was fixed
for 16+ in a4adc31f690 on 2022-11-20, but only backpatched to 12-15 on
2024-01-18.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2024-04-10 17:08:46 | Re: Issue with the PRNG used by Postgres |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-04-10 17:03:05 | Re: Issue with the PRNG used by Postgres |