Re: FailedAssertion("pd_idx == pinfo->nparts", File: "execPartition.c", Line: 1689)
От | Amit Langote |
---|---|
Тема | Re: FailedAssertion("pd_idx == pinfo->nparts", File: "execPartition.c", Line: 1689) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+HiwqH=nLqn4e9j-Xwwz06fLeNh7rCBzp7iUG4iWrSMmWzBUQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: FailedAssertion("pd_idx == pinfo->nparts", File: "execPartition.c", Line: 1689) (Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 10:04 AM Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 09:53:44AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 9:52 AM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 9:32 AM Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 09:26:20AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 12:11 AM Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 08:12:10PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote: > > > > > > > It may be this commit that went into PG 12 that is causing the problem: > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for digging into this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > to account for partitions that were pruned by the planner for which we > > > > > > > decided to put 0 into relid_map, but it only considered the case where > > > > > > > the number of partitions doesn't change since the plan was created. > > > > > > > The crash reported here is in the other case where the concurrently > > > > > > > added partitions cause the execution-time PartitionDesc to have more > > > > > > > partitions than the one that PartitionedRelPruneInfo is based on. > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there anything else needed to check that my crash matches your analysis ? > > > > > > > > > > If you can spot a 0 in the output of the following, then yes. > > > > > > > > > > (gdb) p *pinfo->relid_map@pinfo->nparts > > > > > > > > I guess you knew that an earlier message has just that. Thanks. > > > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20200803161133.GA21372@telsasoft.com > > > > > > Yeah, you showed: > > > > > > (gdb) p *pinfo->relid_map@414 > > > > > > And there is indeed a 0 in there, but I wasn't sure if it was actually > > > in the array or a stray zero due to forcing gdb to show beyond the > > > array bound. Does pinfo->nparts match 414? > > Yes. I typed 414 manually since the the array lengths were suspect. > > (gdb) p pinfo->nparts > $1 = 414 > (gdb) set print elements 0 > (gdb) p *pinfo->relid_map@pinfo->nparts > $3 = {.... > 21151836, 21151726, 21151608, 21151498, 21151388, 21151278, 21151168, 21151055, 2576248, 2576255, 2576262, 2576269, 2576276,21456497, 22064128, 0} Thanks. There is a 0 in there, which can only be there if planner was able to prune that last partition. So, the planner saw a table with 414 partitions, was able to prune the last one and constructed an Append plan with 413 subplans for unpruned partitions as you showed upthread: > (gdb) p *node->appendplans > $17 = {type = T_List, length = 413, max_length = 509, elements = 0x7037400, initial_elements = 0x7037400} This suggests that the crash I was able produce is similar to what you saw. -- Amit Langote EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: