From: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Doug Roberts <h205881(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Postgres Crashing |
Date: | 2020-02-04 16:40:27 |
Message-ID: | d0e33a60-c26c-0d52-0935-134c7c1a8fa5@aklaver.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 2/4/20 6:20 AM, Doug Roberts wrote:
>> So how did containers_reset_recirc() come to clash with
>> containers_add_update()?
>
> They are clashing because another portion of our system is running and
> updating containers. The reset recirc function was run at the same time
> to see how our system and the database would handle it.
So does your system have the things Tom mentioned below?:
"The known bugs in that area
require either before-row-update triggers on the table, or
child tables (either partitioning or traditional inheritance).
So I wonder what the schema of table "containers" looks like."
>
> The recirc string is formatted like 2000=3,1000=6,5000=0. So the reset
> recirc function with take a UID (1000 for example) and use that to
> remove 1000=x from all of the recirc counts for all of the containers
> that have 1000=x.
>
> We are currently using PG 12.0.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Doug
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 6:21 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us
> <mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>> wrote:
>
> Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com
> <mailto:adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>> writes:
> > Please reply to list also.
>
> > On 2/3/20 2:18 PM, Doug Roberts wrote:
> >> Here is what the reset recirc function is doing.
> >> ...
> >> UPDATE containers
> >> ...
>
> > So how did containers_reset_recirc() come to clash with
> > containers_add_update()?
>
> If this is PG 12.0 or 12.1, a likely theory is that this is an
> EvalPlanQual bug (which'd be triggered during concurrent updates
> of the same row in the table, so that squares with the observation
> that locking the table prevents it). The known bugs in that area
> require either before-row-update triggers on the table, or
> child tables (either partitioning or traditional inheritance).
> So I wonder what the schema of table "containers" looks like.
>
> Or you could have hit some new bug ... but there's not enough
> info here to diagnose.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Brannen | 2020-02-04 17:58:23 | RE: Add column with default value in big table - splitting of updates can help? |
Previous Message | Doug Roberts | 2020-02-04 16:27:14 | Re: Postgres Crashing |