Re: [CLOBBER_CACHE]Server crashed with segfault 11 while executing clusterdb
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [CLOBBER_CACHE]Server crashed with segfault 11 while executing clusterdb |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 887898.1616513364@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [CLOBBER_CACHE]Server crashed with segfault 11 while executing clusterdb (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [CLOBBER_CACHE]Server crashed with segfault 11 while executing clusterdb
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote: > Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes: >> One bisect later, the winner is: >> commit: 3d351d916b20534f973eda760cde17d96545d4c4 >> author: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> >> date: Sun, 30 Aug 2020 12:21:51 -0400 >> Redefine pg_class.reltuples to be -1 before the first VACUUM or ANALYZE. > I think that's an artifact. That commit didn't touch anything related to > relation opening or closing. What it could have done, though, is change > CLUSTER's behavior on this empty table from use-an-index to use-a-seqscan, > thus causing us to follow the buggy code path where before we didn't. On closer inspection, I believe the true culprit is c6b92041d, which did this: */ if (RelationNeedsWAL(state->rs_new_rel)) - heap_sync(state->rs_new_rel); + smgrimmedsync(state->rs_new_rel->rd_smgr, MAIN_FORKNUM); logical_end_heap_rewrite(state); heap_sync was careful about opening rd_smgr, the new code not so much. I read the rest of that commit and didn't see any other equivalent bugs, but I might've missed something. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: