| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: buffer assertion tripping under repeat pgbench load |
| Date: | 2012-12-24 16:16:10 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nMJXB0GvPhuOy1DG92NPNUNQmPNroDVWpC1c2C8ofHxtAg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 24 December 2012 16:07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Huh. Looks a bit like overflow of the refcount, which would explain why
> it takes such a long test case to reproduce it. But how could that be
> happening without somebody forgetting to decrement the refcount, which
> ought to lead to a visible failure in shorter tests? Even more
> interesting that the buffer's global refcount is zero.
But we test at the end of each transaction whether any pin count is
non-zero, so it can't have slowly built up.
It would be easier for it to have decremented too many times within
just one transaction.
Something to do with tail recursion during VACUUM?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2012-12-24 16:25:46 | Re: buffer assertion tripping under repeat pgbench load |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-12-24 16:10:23 | Re: buffer assertion tripping under repeat pgbench load |