On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 07:30:37AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Sure thing, thanks, done :-)
Thanks, Alvaro.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 2019-Oct-18, Michael Paquier wrote:
> What you are proposing here sounds fine to me. Perhaps you would
> prefer to adjust the code yourself?
Sure thing, thanks, done :-)
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 06:56:48AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Oct-17, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> pgstat_progress_end_command() is done for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY after
>> the concurrent drop, so it made sense to me to still report any PID
>> REINDEX CONC is waiting for at this stage.
>
>
On 2019-Oct-17, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 05:33:22AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Hmm, I wonder if it isn't the right solution to set 'progress' to false
> > in that spot, instead. index_drop says it must only be called by the
> > dependency machinery; are we depending
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 05:33:22AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Hmm, I wonder if it isn't the right solution to set 'progress' to false
> in that spot, instead. index_drop says it must only be called by the
> dependency machinery; are we depending on that to pass-through the need
> to update pro
On 2019-Oct-17, Michael Paquier wrote:
> You may not have a backtrace, but I think that you are right:
> WaitForLockers() gets called in index_drop() with progress reporting
> enabled. index_drop() would also be taken by REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
> through performMultipleDeletions() but we cannot know
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 04:11:46PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 04:18:34PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> (FWIW I expect the crash is possible not just in reindex but also in
>> CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY.)
>
> FWIW, for sake of list archives, and for anyone running v12 ho
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 09:53:56AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Thanks, pushed.
Thanks, Alvaro.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 04:18:34PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> (FWIW I expect the crash is possible not just in reindex but also in
> CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY.)
FWIW, for sake of list archives, and for anyone running v12 hoping to avoid
crashing, I believe we hit this for DROP INDEX CONCURRENT
On 2019-Oct-15, Michael Paquier wrote:
> So, Alvaro, your patch looks good to me. Could you apply it?
Thanks, pushed.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 08:57:16AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I need to think about that, but shouldn't we have a way to reproduce
> that case rather reliably with an isolation test? The patch looks to
> good to me, these are also the two places I spotted yesterday after a
> quick lookup. Th
On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 03:10:21PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Oct-13, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> > Looks like it's a race condition and dereferencing *holder=NULL. The first
> > crash was probably the same bug, due to report query running during "reindex
> > CONCURRENTLY", and probably
On 2019-Oct-13, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Looks like it's a race condition and dereferencing *holder=NULL. The first
> crash was probably the same bug, due to report query running during "reindex
> CONCURRENTLY", and probably finished at nearly the same time as another
> locker.
Ooh, right, makes
On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 06:06:43PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 07:44:46PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Unfortunately, there was no core file, and I'm still trying to reproduce it.
>
> Forgot to set ulimit -c? Having a backtrace would surely help.
Fortunately (?) an
On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 04:18:34PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> True. And we can copy the resulting comment to the other spot.
>
> (FWIW I expect the crash is possible not just in reindex but also in
> CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY.)
I need to think about that, but shouldn't we have a way to repro
On 2019-Oct-13, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 03:10:21PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2019-Oct-13, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> >
> > > Looks like it's a race condition and dereferencing *holder=NULL. The
> > > first
> > > crash was probably the same bug, due to report query r
Resending this message, which didn't make it to the list when I sent it
earlier. (And, notified -www).
On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 06:06:43PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 07:44:46PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Unfortunately, there was no core file, and I'm still trying
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 07:44:46PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> That's an index on a table partition, but not itself a child of a relkind=I
> index.
Interesting. Testing with a partition tree, and indexes on leaves
which do not have dependencies with a parent I cannot reproduce
anything. Perhap
18 matches
Mail list logo
