Re: REINDEX INDEX results in a crash for an index of pg_class since 9.6
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: REINDEX INDEX results in a crash for an index of pg_class since 9.6 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 26300.1556809723@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: REINDEX INDEX results in a crash for an index of pg_class since9.6 (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2019-05-01 00:43:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> ... What it's really currently doing at the >> moment of the deadlock is cleaning out its temporary schema after the >> client disconnected. > I'm inclined to remove the tests from the backbranches, once we've > committed a fix for the actual REINDEX issue, and most of the farm has > been through a cycle or three. I don't think we'll figure out how to > make them robust in time for next week's release. Yeah, as I just said in my other message, I see no other alternative for next week's releases. We can leave the test in place in HEAD a bit longer, but I don't really want it there for the beta either, unless we can think of some better plan. > I don't think we can really rely on the post-disconnect phase completing > in a particularly deterministic time. Exactly :-( >> Another fairly interesting thing is that this log includes the telltale >> 2019-05-01 05:24:48.887 CEST [97694:7] pg_regress/reindex_catalog CONTEXT: while checking uniqueness of tuple (12,71)in relation "pg_class" >> Why did I have to dig to find that information in HEAD? Have we lost >> some useful context reporting? (Note this run is in the v10 branch.) FWIW, as best I can reconstruct the sequence of events, I might just not've looked. I got an error and just assumed it was the same as what we'd seen in the buildfarm; but now we realize that there were multiple ways to get deadlocks, and only some of them would have shown this. For the moment I'm willing to assume this isn't a real issue. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: