Re: BUG #17485: Records missing from Primary Key index when doing REINDEX INDEX CONCURRENTLY
От | Alvaro Herrera |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #17485: Records missing from Primary Key index when doing REINDEX INDEX CONCURRENTLY |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 202205311530.yrxaulmj4d7y@alvherre.pgsql обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #17485: Records missing from Primary Key index when doing REINDEX INDEX CONCURRENTLY (Andrey Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #17485: Records missing from Primary Key index when doing REINDEX INDEX CONCURRENTLY
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On 2022-May-28, Andrey Borodin wrote: > And reverting d9d0762 does not fix the issue. I'm not sure if I'm observing some other problem here. > > v4 of a test not use pg_sleep() and fails with regular amcheck > failure. Reverting d9d0762 fixes the test. Unless I execute the test > for 1 million transactions, then it fail even with a revert... > > I suspect that v3 and v4 triggers different problems. Hmm, the only failure I see with v4 is a deadlock of this sort: 2022-05-31 17:26:13.400 CEST [130375] 004_rc.pl ERROR: deadlock detected 2022-05-31 17:26:13.400 CEST [130375] 004_rc.pl DETAIL: Process 130375 waits for ShareLock on transaction 36108; blockedby process 130372. Process 130372 waits for ShareLock on transaction 36107; blocked by process 130375. Process 130375: INSERT INTO tbl VALUES(random()*1000,0,0,0,now()) on conflict(i) do update set updated_at = now(); Process 130372: INSERT INTO tbl VALUES(random()*1000,0,0,0,now()) on conflict(i) do update set updated_at = now(); which is of course not very interesting. -- Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ <Schwern> It does it in a really, really complicated way <crab> why does it need to be complicated? <Schwern> Because it's MakeMaker.
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: