Re: Failures in constraints regression test, "read only 0 of 8192 bytes"
От | Tomas Vondra |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Failures in constraints regression test, "read only 0 of 8192 bytes" |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 61ef0b89-1ec6-4d88-afbd-2ffc2c977511@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Failures in constraints regression test, "read only 0 of 8192 bytes" (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Failures in constraints regression test, "read only 0 of 8192 bytes"
Re: Failures in constraints regression test, "read only 0 of 8192 bytes" |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/8/24 13:21, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On 3/8/24 09:33, Thomas Munro wrote: >> Happened again. I see this is OpenSUSE. Does that mean the file >> system is Btrfs? > > > It is, but I don't think that matters - I've been able to reproduce this > locally on my laptop using ext4 filesystem. I'd bet the important piece > here is -DCLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS (and it seems avocet/trilobite are the > only animals running with this). > > Also, if this really is a filesystem (or environment) issue, it seems > very strange it'd only affect HEAD and not the other branches. So it > seems quite likely this is actually triggered by a commit. > > Looking at the commits from the good/bad runs, I see this: > > avocet: good=4c2369a bad=f5a465f > trilobite: good=d13ff82 bad=def0ce3 > > That means the commit would have to be somewhere here: > > f5a465f1a07 Promote assertion about !ReindexIsProcessingIndex to ... > 57b28c08305 Doc: fix minor typos in two ECPG function descriptions. > 28e858c0f95 Improve documentation and GUC description for ... > a661bf7b0f5 Remove flaky isolation tests for timeouts > 874d817baa1 Multiple revisions to the GROUP BY reordering tests > 466979ef031 Replace lateral references to removed rels in subqueries > a6b2a51e16d Avoid dangling-pointer problem with partitionwise ... > d360e3cc60e Fix compiler warning on typedef redeclaration > 8af25652489 Introduce a new smgr bulk loading facility. > e612384fc78 Fix mistake in SQL features list > d13ff82319c Fix BF failure in commit 93db6cbda0. > > My guess would be 8af25652489, as it's the only storage-related commit. > > I'm currently running tests to verify this. > Yup, the breakage starts with this commit. I haven't looked into the root cause, or whether the commit maybe just made some pre-existing issue easier to hit. Also, I haven't followed the discussion on the pgsql-bugs thread [1], maybe there are some interesting findings. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/1878547.tdWV9SEqCh%40aivenlaptop regards -- Tomas Vondra EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: