| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: slru.c race condition (was Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags & 0x01)", ) |
| Date: | 2005-11-01 19:21:29 |
| Message-ID: | 27298.1130872889@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> writes:
> Doesn't clog use the same code?
Yeah, but all three of your examples were referencing pg_subtrans,
as proven by the stack traces and the contents of the shared control
block.
Even though the bug seems completely clog.c's fault, this is not a
coincidence: if subtransactions are being used heavily, then pg_subtrans
would have far greater I/O volume than any of the other clog-managed
logs, and hence have more exposure to the race condition.
We really ought to fix that code so that pg_subtrans can have more
buffers than pg_clog...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-11-01 19:22:38 | Re: slru.c race condition (was Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags & 0x01)", ) |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-11-01 18:49:44 | Re: slru.c race condition (was Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags & 0x01)", ) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-11-01 19:22:38 | Re: slru.c race condition (was Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags & 0x01)", ) |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-11-01 18:49:44 | Re: slru.c race condition (was Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags & 0x01)", ) |