From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Neha Sharma <neha(dot)sharma(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [TRAP: FailedAssertion] causing server to crash |
Date: | 2017-07-21 05:31:46 |
Message-ID: | CAEepm=2PAmk5_EbqgB0duwgn=FHFeD5PJMtBhnOBTOSYhrihtQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Neha Sharma
<neha(dot)sharma(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Attached is the core dump file received on PG 10beta2 version.
Thanks Neha. It's be best to post the back trace and if possible
print oldestXact and ShmemVariableCache->oldestXid from the stack
frame for TruncateCLOG.
The failing assertion in TruncateCLOG() has a comment that says
"vac_truncate_clog already advanced oldestXid", but vac_truncate_clog
calls SetTransactionIdLimit() to write ShmemVariableCache->oldestXid
*after* it calls TruncateCLOG(). What am I missing here?
What actually prevents ShmemVariableCache->oldestXid from going
backwards anyway? Suppose there are two or more autovacuum processes
that reach vac_truncate_clog() concurrently. They do a scan of
pg_database whose tuples they access without locking through a
pointer-to-volatile because they expect concurrent in-place writers,
come up with a value for frozenXID, and then arrive at
SetTransactionIdLimit() in whatever order and clobber
ShmemVariableCache->oldestXid. What am I missing here?
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2017-07-21 05:37:03 | Re: PgFDW connection invalidation by ALTER SERVER/ALTER USER MAPPING |
Previous Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2017-07-21 05:25:51 | Re: PgFDW connection invalidation by ALTER SERVER/ALTER USER MAPPING |