Re: Direct I/O
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Direct I/O |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3622674.1680988219@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Direct I/O (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Direct I/O
Re: Direct I/O |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes: > On Sun, Apr 9, 2023 at 6:55 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: >> Given the frequency of failures on this in the buildfarm, I propose using the >> temporary workaround of using wal_level=replica. That avoids the use of the >> over-eager log_newpage_range(). > Will do. Now crake is doing this: 2023-04-08 16:50:03.177 EDT [2023-04-08 16:50:03 EDT 3257645:3] 004_io_direct.pl LOG: statement: select count(*) from t1 2023-04-08 16:50:03.316 EDT [2023-04-08 16:50:03 EDT 3257646:1] ERROR: invalid page in block 56 of relation base/5/16384 2023-04-08 16:50:03.316 EDT [2023-04-08 16:50:03 EDT 3257646:2] STATEMENT: select count(*) from t1 2023-04-08 16:50:03.317 EDT [2023-04-08 16:50:03 EDT 3257645:4] 004_io_direct.pl ERROR: invalid page in block 56 of relationbase/5/16384 2023-04-08 16:50:03.317 EDT [2023-04-08 16:50:03 EDT 3257645:5] 004_io_direct.pl STATEMENT: select count(*) from t1 2023-04-08 16:50:03.319 EDT [2023-04-08 16:50:02 EDT 3257591:4] LOG: background worker "parallel worker" (PID 3257646) exitedwith exit code 1 The fact that the error is happening in a parallel worker seems interesting ... (BTW, why are the log lines doubly timestamped?) regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: