Re: Priority table or Cache table
От | Haribabu Kommi |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Priority table or Cache table |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAJrrPGeMY=chgBP3SP6TgGvF27d_YPDes6OcGEZiLVx7VjhKqA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Priority table or Cache table (Sameer Thakur <samthakur74@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Priority table or Cache table
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Sameer Thakur <samthakur74@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > I applied the patch to current HEAD. There was one failure (attached), > freelist.rej > <http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/file/n5804200/freelist.rej> > > Compiled the provided pgbench.c and added following in .conf > shared_buffers = 128MB # min 128kB > Shared_buffers=64MB > Priority_buffers=128MB > > I was planning to performance test later hence different values. > > But while executing pgbench the following assertion occurs > > LOG: database system is ready to accept connections > LOG: autovacuum launcher started > TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(strategy_delta >= 0)", File: "bufmgr.c", Line: > 1435) > LOG: background writer process (PID 10274) was terminated by signal 6: > Aborted > LOG: terminating any other active server processes > WARNING: terminating connection because of crash of another server process > DETAIL: The postmaster has commanded this server process to roll back the > current transaction and exit, because another server process exited > abnormally and possibly corrupted shared memory. > > Is there a way to avoid it? Am i making some mistake? Sorry for the late reply. Thanks for the test. Please find the re-based patch with a temp fix for correcting the problem. I will a submit a proper patch fix later. Regards, Hari Babu Fujitsu Australia
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: