Re: One-off failure in "cluster" test
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: One-off failure in "cluster" test |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1036193.1597627240@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | One-off failure in "cluster" test (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: One-off failure in "cluster" test
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes: > I wonder what caused this[1] one-off failure to see tuples in clustered order: > ... > I guess a synchronised scan could cause that, but I wouldn't expect one here. Looking at its configuration, chipmunk uses 'extra_config' => { ... 'shared_buffers = 10MB', which I think means that clstr_4 would be large enough to trigger a syncscan. Ordinarily that's not a problem since no other session would be touching clstr_4 ... but I wonder whether (a) autovacuum had decided to look at clstr_4 and (b) syncscan can trigger on vacuum-driven scans. (a) would explain the non-reproducibility. I kinda think that (b), if true, is a bad idea and should be suppressed. autovacuum would typically fail to keep up with other syncscans thanks to vacuum delay settings, so letting it participate seems unhelpful. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: