| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: buildfarm: could not read block 3 in file "base/16384/2662": read only 0 of 8192 bytes |
| Date: | 2018-08-29 20:38:49 |
| Message-ID: | 32048.1535575129@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2018-08-29 12:56:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> BTW, I now have a theory for why we suddenly started seeing this problem
>> in mid-June: commits a54e1f158 et al added a ScanPgRelation call where
>> there had been none before (in RelationReloadNailed, for non-index rels).
>> That didn't create the problem, but it probably increased the odds of
>> seeing it happen.
> Yea. Doesn't explain why it's only really visible on the BF in
> 11/master though :/
Probably we changed around the tests that run in parallel with vacuum.sql
enough during v11 to make it happen with noticeable probability. I think
this is sufficient evidence that it's happening now in the back branches:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180829140149.GO23024@telsasoft.com
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-08-29 20:41:42 | Re: buildfarm: could not read block 3 in file "base/16384/2662": read only 0 of 8192 bytes |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-08-29 20:16:48 | Re: buildfarm: could not read block 3 in file "base/16384/2662": read only 0 of 8192 bytes |