Re: conchuela timeouts since 2021-10-09 system upgrade

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Subject: Re: conchuela timeouts since 2021-10-09 system upgrade
Date: 2021-10-28 15:47:01
Message-ID: 486056.1635436021@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> writes:
>> 26 окт. 2021 г., в 22:41, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> написал(а):
>> We can get around that though, by using pg_try_advisory_lock and not
>> proceeding if it fails. The attached POC does this for the 002 test;
>> it looks like the same thing could be done to 003.

> That's a neat idea. PFA patch with copy of this changes to 003.

Pushed. It'll be interesting to see if conchuela's behavior changes.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2021-10-28 15:53:26 Re: BUG #17245: Index corruption involving deduplicated entries
Previous Message David Hillman 2021-10-28 15:33:08 Re: BUG #17249: Bug in .pgpass search and/or documentation thereof, Ubuntu 13.4-4