Re: assertion failure 9.3.4
От | Alvaro Herrera |
---|---|
Тема | Re: assertion failure 9.3.4 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20140422210140.GI25695@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: assertion failure 9.3.4 (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: assertion failure 9.3.4
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund wrote: > On 2014-04-21 19:43:15 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > > On 04/21/2014 02:54 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > >Hi, > > > > > >I spent the last two hours poking arounds in the environment Andrew > > >provided and I was able to reproduce the issue, find a assert to > > >reproduce it much faster and find a possible root cause. > > > > > > What's the assert that makes it happen faster? That might help a lot in > > constructing a self-contained test. > > Assertion and *preliminary*, *hacky* fix attached. Thanks for the analysis and patches. I've been playing with this on my own a bit, and one thing that I just noticed is that at least for heap_update I cannot reproduce a problem when the xmax is originally a multixact, so AFAICT the number of places that need patched aren't as many. Some testing later, I think the issue only occurs if we determine that we don't need to wait for the xid/multi to complete, because otherwise the wait itself saves us. (It's easy to cause the problem by adding a breakpoint in heapam.c:3325, i.e. just before re-acquiring the buffer lock, and then having transaction A lock for key share, then transaction B update the tuple which stops at the breakpoint, then transaction A also update the tuple, and finally release transaction B). For now I offer a cleaned up version of your patch to add the assertion that multis don't contain multiple updates. I considered the idea of making this #ifdef USE_ASSERT_CHECKING, because it has to walk the complete array of members; and then have full elogs in MultiXactIdExpand and MultiXactIdCreate, which are lighter because they can check more easily. But on second thoughts I refrained from doing that, because surely the arrays are not as large anyway, are they. I think I should push this patch first, so that Andrew and Josh can try their respective test cases which should start throwing errors, then push the actual fixes. Does that sound okay? -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: