On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:51 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 12:35 AM, Kuntal Ghosh
> wrote:
>> I've also verified the backward scan case with the query provided by
>> Thomas. In standby,
>> 2. explain analyze select * from t1 where a+1>a order by a desc; and
>> the parallel work
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 12:35 AM, Kuntal Ghosh
wrote:
> I've also verified the backward scan case with the query provided by
> Thomas. In standby,
> 2. explain analyze select * from t1 where a+1>a order by a desc; and
> the parallel workers hang.
> The patch fixes the issue.
Committed and back-pa
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Kuntal Ghosh
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Thomas Munro
>>> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Amit Kapila
wrote:
>>>
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Thomas Munro
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Amit Kapila
>>> wrote:
>>>
Thanks for looking into it. I will see if we can write s
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 4:20 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> Good. I hope that the patch I have posted above is able to resolve
>> this problem. I am asking as you haven't explicitly mentioned that.
>
> I can confirm that your patch fixes the pro
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Good. I hope that the patch I have posted above is able to resolve
> this problem. I am asking as you haven't explicitly mentioned that.
I can confirm that your patch fixes the problem for forward scans.
That is, I can see it reaching the BT
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:02 AM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here's a reproducer which enabled me to reach this stuck state:
>
> pid | wait_event |query
> ---+---+---
Hi,
Here's a reproducer which enabled me to reach this stuck state:
pid | wait_event |query
---+---+-
64617 | | select pid, wait_event, query from
p
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for looking into it. I will see if we can write some test. In
>>> the meantime if possible, can you please request
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
>> Thanks for looking into it. I will see if we can write some test. In
>> the meantime if possible, can you please request Patrick Hemmer to
>> verify the attached patch?
>
> Our discus
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>> ... and then it called _bt_parallel_seize() itself, in violation of
>> the rule (by my reading of the code) that you must call
>> _bt_parallel_release() (via _bt_readpage()) or _bt_para
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> Hi hackers,
>
>
> ... and then it called _bt_parallel_seize() itself, in violation of
> the rule (by my reading of the code) that you must call
> _bt_parallel_release() (via _bt_readpage()) or _bt_parallel_done()
> after seizing the scan. If
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> I heard a report of a 10.1 cluster hanging with several 'BtreePage'
> wait_events showing in pg_stat_activity.
I forgot to add, for bug reporter credit purposes: thanks to Patrick
Hemmer for the off-list report and backtrace. He's able to wo
13 matches
Mail list logo
