Re: logical decoding bug: segfault in ReorderBufferToastReplace()
| От | Jeremy Schneider |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: logical decoding bug: segfault in ReorderBufferToastReplace() |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 444215b4-8fb5-6a82-a534-645abafbffb4@amazon.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: logical decoding bug: segfault in ReorderBufferToastReplace() (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: logical decoding bug: segfault in ReorderBufferToastReplace()
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/4/21 23:42, Amit Kapila wrote:
On 2021-Jun-04, Jeremy Schneider wrote:ERROR: XX000: could not open relation with OID 0 LOCATION: ReorderBufferToastReplace, reorderbuffer.c:305Even, if this fixes the issue, I guess it is better to find why this happens? I think the reason why the code is giving an error is that after toast insertions we always expect the insert on the main table of toast table, but if there happens to be a case where after toast insertion, instead of getting the insertion on the main table we get an insert in some other table then you will see this error. I think this can happen for speculative insertions where insertions lead to a toast table insert, then we get a speculative abort record, and then insertion on some other table. The main thing is currently decoding code ignores speculative aborts due to which such a problem can occur. Now, there could be other cases where such a problem can happen but if my theory is correct then the patch we are discussing in the thread [1] should solve this problem. Jeremy, is this problem reproducible? Can we get a testcase or pg_waldump output of previous WAL records? [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAExHW5sPKF-Oovx_qZe4p5oM6Dvof7_P%2BXgsNAViug15Fm99jA%40mail.gmail.com
It's unclear to me whether or not we'll be able to catch the repro on the actual production system. It seems that we are hitting this somewhat consistently, but at irregular and infrequent intervals. If we are able to catch it and walk the WAL records then I'll post back here. FYI, Bertrand was able to replicate the exact error message with pretty much the same repro that's in the other email thread which is linked above.
Separately, would there be any harm in adding the relation OID to the error message? Personally, I just think the error message is generally more useful if it shows the main relation OID (since we know that the toast OID can be 0). Not a big deal though.
-Jeremy
-- Jeremy Schneider Database Engineer Amazon Web Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: