| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com, soumyadeep2007(at)gmail(dot)com, hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, jyih(at)vmware(dot)com, kyeap(at)vmware(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: PITR promote bug: Checkpointer writes to older timeline |
| Date: | 2021-06-27 19:13:20 |
| Message-ID: | 78633.1624821200@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Buildfarm member hornet just reported a failure in this test:
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=hornet&dt=2021-06-27%2013%3A40%3A57
> It's not clear whether this is a problem with the test case or an
> actual server bug, but I'm leaning to the latter theory. My gut
> feel is it's some problem in the "snapshot scalability" work. It
> doesn't look the same as the known open issue, but maybe related?
Hmm, the plot thickens. I scraped the buildfarm logs for similar-looking
assertion failures back to last August, when the snapshot scalability
patches went in. The first such failure is not until 2021-03-24
(see attachment), and they all look to be triggered by
023_pitr_prepared_xact.pl. It sure looks like recovering a prepared
transaction creates a transient state in which a new backend will
compute a broken snapshot.
regards, tom lane
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| transaction-ordering-assertion-failures.txt | text/plain | 2.9 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-06-27 19:20:50 | Re: PITR promote bug: Checkpointer writes to older timeline |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-06-27 18:35:24 | Re: PITR promote bug: Checkpointer writes to older timeline |