| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Log details for stats dropped more than once |
| Date: | 2024-05-15 05:47:29 |
| Message-ID: | ZkRMcfaEesMz5MSr@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 10:07:14AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> While resuming the work on refilenode stats (mentioned in [1] but did not share
> the patch yet), I realized that my current POC patch is buggy enough to produce
> things like:
>
> 024-05-14 09:51:14.783 UTC [1788714] FATAL: can only drop stats once
>
> While the CONTEXT provides the list of dropped stats:
>
> 2024-05-14 09:51:14.783 UTC [1788714] CONTEXT: WAL redo at 0/D75F478 for Transaction/ABORT: 2024-05-14 09:51:14.782223+00; dropped stats: 2/16384/27512/0 2/16384/27515/0 2/16384/27516/0
Can refcount be useful to know in this errcontext?
> Attached a tiny patch to report the stat that generates the error. The patch uses
> errdetail_internal() as the extra details don't seem to be useful to average
> users.
I think that's fine. Overall that looks like useful information for
debugging, so no objections from here.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2024-05-15 05:56:54 | Re: pg_trgm comparison bug on cross-architecture replication due to different char implementation |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-05-15 05:32:22 | Re: Fixup a few 2023 copyright years |