OK, on it now!
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> I said:
> >> I have a theory about the failures that occur while creating tables.
> >> If a relcache flush were to occur due to SI buffer overrun between
> >> creation of the new rel's re
I said:
>> I have a theory about the failures that occur while creating tables.
>> If a relcache flush were to occur due to SI buffer overrun between
>> creation of the new rel's relcache entry by RelationBuildLocalRelation
>> and completion of the command, then you'd see an error exactly like the
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom, is the attached regression diff considered normal? This was
> > generated by current CVS.
>
> Well, this *looks* like it could be an example of the SI-overrun-
> during-create behavior I was talking about. But if you weren't ru
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom, is the attached regression diff considered normal? This was
> generated by current CVS.
Well, this *looks* like it could be an example of the SI-overrun-
during-create behavior I was talking about. But if you weren't running
a verbose log to show
Tom, is the attached regression diff considered normal? This was
generated by current CVS.
I am trying to determine what is a normal error and what is something to
be concerned about.
Also, I am up to Feb 25 with no errors, but am still testing.
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am now seeing this error in 2003-03-03.
> CREATE TABLE INSERT_CHILD (cx INT default 42,
> cy INT CHECK (cy > x))
> INHERITS (INSERT_TBL);
> + ERROR: RelationClearRelation: relation 130996 deleted while still in use
Define "now seein
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I am now seeing this error in 2003-03-03.
>
> > CREATE TABLE INSERT_CHILD (cx INT default 42,
> > cy INT CHECK (cy > x))
> > INHERITS (INSERT_TBL);
> > + ERROR: RelationClearRelation: relation 130996 deleted while s
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am now seeing this error in 2003-03-03.
> CREATE TABLE INSERT_CHILD (cx INT default 42,
> cy INT CHECK (cy > x))
> INHERITS (INSERT_TBL);
> + ERROR: RelationClearRelation: relation 130996 deleted while still in use
I have a theory about the failures
I am now seeing this error in 2003-03-03.
CREATE TABLE INSERT_CHILD (cx INT default 42,
cy INT CHECK (cy > x))
INHERITS (INSERT_TBL);
+ ERROR: RelationClearRelation: relation 130996 deleted while still in use
-
I am testing this today. I found 2003-03-03 to not generate a failure
in 20 tests, so I am moving forward to April/May.
---
Robert Creager wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
>
> I will stand by the fact that I cannot g
I will stand by the fact that I cannot generate failures from
2003-02-15 (200+ runs), and I can from 2003-02-16. Just to make sure I
didn't screw up the cvs usage, I'll try again tonight if I get the
chance and re-download re-test these two days.
I can set up a script that will step through week
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have only been running nightly paralell regression runs since June 27,
> so it is possible that the paralell regression was broken in February,
> fixed in May, then broken some time after that.
Any further progress on this?
My best theory at the momen
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 21:08:46 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said something like:
>
> I am seeing repeatable success from a CVS of 2003-05-01, and
> repeatable failure from current CVS.
>
> I have only been running nightly paralell regression runs since June
> 27, so it is possible
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 20:24:56 -0400
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said something like:
>
> What time of day did your successive pulls correspond to, anyway?
> (I believe my cvs2cl printout above is showing me EST.)
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
I'm MST, and I did not specify a
I am seeing repeatable success from a CVS of 2003-05-01, and repeatable
failure from current CVS.
I have only been running nightly paralell regression runs since June 27,
so it is possible that the paralell regression was broken in February,
fixed in May, then broken some time after that.
I will
Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Creager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 2003-02-15 passes 50/50 and 33/33 on second pass (so far)
> > 2003-02-16 fails 6/50
>
> I looked in the CVS logs while waiting for a compile, and the only patch
> I see that goes anywhere near the locking or cache code around that ti
Robert Creager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2003-02-15 passes 50/50 and 33/33 on second pass (so far)
> 2003-02-16 fails 6/50
I looked in the CVS logs while waiting for a compile, and the only patch
I see that goes anywhere near the locking or cache code around that time
is this one:
2003-02-17
Robert Creager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Looks like something was done after the 15'th...
> 2003-02-15 passes 50/50 and 33/33 on second pass (so far)
> 2003-02-16 fails 6/50
As far back as that! Okay, many thanks for the info --- that will help.
I'm buried in error message editing right now
I found it (I think)...
Looks like something was done after the 15'th...
2003-02-15 passes 50/50 and 33/33 on second pass (so far)
2003-02-16 fails 6/50
vacuum failed 1 times
misc failed 3 times
sanity_check failed 3 times
inherit failed 1 times
triggers failed 4 times
2003-02-18
19 matches
Mail list logo
