Re: Re: BUG #7969: Postgres Recovery Fatal With: "incorrect local pin count:2"
| От | Heikki Linnakangas |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Re: BUG #7969: Postgres Recovery Fatal With: "incorrect local pin count:2" |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 515342CF.1080805@vmware.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: BUG #7969: Postgres Recovery Fatal With: "incorrect local pin count:2" (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Re: BUG #7969: Postgres Recovery Fatal With: "incorrect
local pin count:2"
|
| Список | pgsql-bugs |
On 27.03.2013 20:27, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Folks,
>
> So I'm a bit surprised that this bug report hasn't gotten a follow-up.
> Does this sound like the known 9.2.2 corruption issue, or is it
> potentially something else?
It seems like a new issue. At a quick glance, I think there's a bug in
heap_xlog_update, ie. the redo routine of a heap update. If the new
tuple is put on a different page, and at redo, the new page doesn't
exist (that's normal if it was later vacuumed away), heap_xlog_update
leaks a pin on the old page. Here:
> {
> nbuffer = XLogReadBuffer(xlrec->target.node,
> ItemPointerGetBlockNumber(&(xlrec->newtid)),
> false);
> if (!BufferIsValid(nbuffer))
> return;
> page = (Page) BufferGetPage(nbuffer);
>
> if (XLByteLE(lsn, PageGetLSN(page))) /* changes are applied */
> {
> UnlockReleaseBuffer(nbuffer);
> if (BufferIsValid(obuffer))
> UnlockReleaseBuffer(obuffer);
> return;
> }
> }
Notice how in the first 'return' above, obuffer is not released.
I'll try to create a reproducible test case for this, and fix..
- Heikki
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: