Re: buildfarm: could not read block 3 in file "base/16384/2662": read only 0 of 8192 bytes
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: buildfarm: could not read block 3 in file "base/16384/2662": read only 0 of 8192 bytes |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 27669.1533782451@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: buildfarm: could not read block 3 in file "base/16384/2662": readonly 0 of 8192 bytes (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>) |
| Ответы |
Re: buildfarm: could not read block 3 in file "base/16384/2662": readonly 0 of 8192 bytes
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> I don't immediately see it being responsible, but I wonder if there's a
>> chance it actually is: Note that it happens in a parallel group that
>> includes vacuum.sql, which does a VACUUM FULL pg_class - but I still
>> don't immediately see how it could apply.
> Anyway, "VACUUM FULL pg_class" should be expected to corrupt
> pg_class_oid_index when we happen to get a parallel build, since
> pg_class is a mapped relation, and I've identified that as a problem
> for parallel CREATE INDEX [2]. If that was the ultimate cause of the
> issue, it would explain why only REL_11_STABLE and master are
> involved.
Oooh ... but pg_class wouldn't be big enough to get a parallel
index rebuild during that test, would it?
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: