Hi Thomas, I was one of the reporter in the early Dec last year. I somehow dropped the ball and forgot about the issue. Anyhow I upgraded the clusters to pg11.1 and nothing changed. I also have a rule to coredump but a segfault does not happen while this is occurring. I see the error showing up every night on 2 different servers. But it's a bit of a heisenbug because If I go there now it won't be reproducible. It was suggested by Justin Pryzby that I recompile pg src with his patch that would cause a coredump. But I don't feel comfortable doing this especially if I would have to run this with prod data. My question is. Can I do anything like increasing logging level or enable some additional options? It's a production server but I'm willing to sacrifice a bit of it's performance if that would help.
-- regards, pozdrawiam, Jakub Glapa On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 4:13 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 10:32 PM Fabio Isabettini > <fisabett...@voipfuture.com> wrote: > > we are facing a similar issue on a Production system using a Postgresql > 10.6: > > > > org.postgresql.util.PSQLException: ERROR: EXCEPTION on getstatistics ; > ID: EXCEPTION on getstatistics_media ; ID: uidatareader. > > run_query_media(2): [a1] REMOTE FATAL: dsa_allocate could not find 7 > free pages > > > We would like not to stop the Production system and upgrade it to PG11. > And even though would this guarantee a permanent fix? > > Any suggestion? > > Hi Fabio, > > Thanks for your report. Could you please also show the query plan > that runs on the "remote" node (where the error occurred)? > > There is no indication that upgrading to PG11 would help here. It > seems we have an undiagnosed bug (in 10 and 11), and so far no one has > been able to reproduce it at will. I personally have chewed a lot of > CPU time on several machines trying various plan shapes and not seen > this or the possibly related symptom from bug #15585 even once. But > we have about three reports of each of the two symptoms. One reporter > wrote to me off-list to say that they'd seen #15585 twice, the second > time by running the same query in a tight loop for 8 hours, and then > not seen it again in the past 3 weeks. Clearly there is issue needing > a fix here, but I don't yet know what it is. > > -- > Thomas Munro > http://www.enterprisedb.com > >
