From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Wood, Dan" <hexpert(at)amazon(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple |
Date: | 2017-10-01 08:45:57 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqSYxZd-OKqsfH1VgwiK90YHDQ-JSgGmgGqT3crQ_DserA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>> Maybe what this means is that we need to do both Dan's initially
>> proposed patch (or something related to it) apart from the fixes already
>> pushed. IOW we need to put back some of the "tupkeep" business ...
>
> I took the time to specifically check if that would fix the problem.
> Unfortunately, it did not. We see exactly the same problem, or at
> least amcheck/REINDEX produces exactly the same error. I checked both
> Dan's original update_freeze.patch, and your revision that retained
> some of the "tupkeep" stuff,
> 0002-Don-t-freeze-recently-dead-HOT-tuples, which you posted on
> September 6th.
I did not take the time to dig into that more than two hours, but my
first feeling is that some race condition is going on with the heap
pruning.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-10-01 13:19:57 | pgsql: Add list of acknowledgments to release notes |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2017-10-01 06:37:42 | pgsql: Fix busy-wait in pgbench, with --rate. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Shubham Barai | 2017-10-01 08:53:58 | Re: GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 6) |
Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2017-10-01 08:14:23 | show precise repos version for dev builds? |