Re: pgsql: When VACUUM or ANALYZE skips a concurrently dropped table, log i

From: "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <rhaas(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: "pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pgsql: When VACUUM or ANALYZE skips a concurrently dropped table, log i
Date: 2017-12-06 19:23:57
Message-ID: 2658DA44-8B3A-430B-A252-48E12AF071DD@amazon.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers

On 12/6/17, 11:57 AM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <rhaas(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
>> When VACUUM or ANALYZE skips a concurrently dropped table, log it.
>
> When this went in, I was pretty skeptical of the value of an isolation
> test for it, but said nothing. However, I now observe that the isolation
> test is falling over on buildfarm machines with -DCLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS.
> The buildfarm reports are a bit hard to interpret, but it's easy to
> reproduce locally, and what I get is
>
> $ more output_iso/regression.diffs
> *** /home/postgres/pgsql/src/test/isolation/expected/vacuum-concurrent-drop.out
> Mon Dec 4 17:02:55 2017
> --- /home/postgres/pgsql/src/test/isolation/output_iso/results/vacuum-concurrent-drop.out Wed Dec 6 12:07:37 2017
> ***************
> *** 49,54 ****
> --- 49,55 ----
> COMMIT;
>
> step analyze_all: <... completed>
> + error in steps drop_and_commit analyze_all: ERROR: canceling statement due to user request
>
> starting permutation: lock vac_analyze_specified drop_and_commit
> step lock:
>
> ======================================================================
>
> What appears to be happening is that a database-wide ANALYZE takes more
> than a minute under CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS, causing isolationtester.c's
> hardwired one-minute timeout to trigger.

Thanks for digging into this.

> While you could imagine doing something to get around that, I do not
> believe that this test is worth memorializing in perpetuity to begin
> with. I'd recommend just taking it out again.

While the current version of the test is clearly broken, I thought
Robert made a pretty strong argument regarding the value of the test
[0]. ISTM the counter-argument is that coverage on a handful of
lines of code is not worth the extra work needed to maintain the
isolation test. I’m not strongly opinionated either way, but I lean
towards wanting to keep the test around.

Perhaps this could be fixed by modifying the database-wide cases to
use partitioned tables instead. The individual partitions will not
have RangeVars specified, so it would cover the case when logging
should be skipped.

Nathan

[0] https://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmobH17W=WdduhXJhxdwHAeTazNp7MDP=k0p=2w1nuSSruw@mail.gmail.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2017-12-06 20:23:55 Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-12-06 17:57:26 Re: pgsql: When VACUUM or ANALYZE skips a concurrently dropped table, log i

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2017-12-06 20:23:55 Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple
Previous Message Alexander Korotkov 2017-12-06 18:49:53 Re: compress method for spgist - 2