Tom Lane wrote:
Are you still concerned about the PageGetFreeSpace issue?
Not anymore.
The failure case I had in mind was not being able to find any valid
split points when a page is full of max-sized index tuples. On a closer
look, that doesn't seem to be a problem. Even though checksplitlo
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Hmm. There seems to be something wrong in the free space calculation in
>> the algorithm for choosing the right split location. I'll dig deeper,
>> unless someone beats me to it..
> I think I found it. The page splitting code didn't take into acc
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> IMHO the right fix is to modify PageGetFreeSpace not to do the
> subtraction, it's a hack anyway, but that means we have to go through
> and fix every caller of it. Or we can add a new PageGetReallyFreeSpace
> function and keep the old one for com
Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
To see what's going on, I added some logs to the split code to print out
the free space on both halves as calculated by findsplitloc, and the
actual free space on the pages after split. I'm seeing a discrepancy of
4 bytes on the ri
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm still wondering why the bug isn't seen in 8.1.
> The hardcoded fillfactor was 90% when building an index, and that's
> still the default. However, when inserting to an existing index, the
> fillfactor on the rightmost page w
Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'm afraid the bug has been there for ages, but the 90%-fillfactor on
rightmost page patch made it much more likely to get triggered.
But that patch has been there for ages too; the only new thing in 8.2 is
that the fillfactor is c
Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'm afraid the bug has been there for ages, but the 90%-fillfactor on
rightmost page patch made it much more likely to get triggered.
But that patch has been there for ages too; the only new thing in 8.2 is
that the fillfactor is c
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm afraid the bug has been there for ages, but the 90%-fillfactor on
> rightmost page patch made it much more likely to get triggered.
But that patch has been there for ages too; the only new thing in 8.2 is
that the fillfactor is configurable, bu
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think I found it. The page splitting code didn't take into account
> that when the new item is the first one on the right page, it also
> becomes the high key of the left page.
Good catch! This is something that would not make a difference with
Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hmm. There seems to be something wrong in the free space calculation in
the algorithm for choosing the right split location. I'll dig deeper,
unless someone beats me to it..
I seem to recall that that part of the code was changed
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmm. There seems to be something wrong in the free space calculation in
> the algorithm for choosing the right split location. I'll dig deeper,
> unless someone beats me to it..
I seem to recall that that part of the code was changed recently, so
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Joe Conway wrote:
We just came upon a crash bug in Postgres >= 8.2. The attached
standalone script (just needs a database with plpgsql installed)
reproduces the crash for me on 32-bit machines (i686) but NOT on 64 bit
machines (x86_64), for Po
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Joe Conway wrote:
We just came upon a crash bug in Postgres >= 8.2. The attached
standalone script (just needs a database with plpgsql installed)
reproduces the crash for me on 32-bit machines (i686) but NOT on 64 bit
machines (x86_64), for Postgres 8.2 and cvs-head, bu
Joe Conway wrote:
We just came upon a crash bug in Postgres >= 8.2. The attached
standalone script (just needs a database with plpgsql installed)
reproduces the crash for me on 32-bit machines (i686) but NOT on 64 bit
machines (x86_64), for Postgres 8.2 and cvs-head, but not on 8.1. We've
verifie
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
Gregory Stark wrote:
"Joe Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
psql:/home/jconway/pgsql/das_data_load_failure2.sql:419: PANIC: failed
to add item to the left sibling for "pk_status_log_2007_01_4_10"
Was this preceded by a WARNING?
Was the server running with a lo
Gregory Stark wrote:
"Joe Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
psql:/home/jconway/pgsql/das_data_load_failure2.sql:419: PANIC: failed
to add item to the left sibling for "pk_status_log_2007_01_4_10"
Was this preceded by a WARNING?
Was the server running with a log_min_messages low enough t
"Joe Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> psql:/home/jconway/pgsql/das_data_load_failure2.sql:419: PANIC: failed
> to add item to the left sibling for "pk_status_log_2007_01_4_10"
Was this preceded by a WARNING?
Was the server running with a log_min_messages low enough to log WARNINGs?
I pr
[
Sorry if this is a duplicate -- resending since it hasn't made it to the
list after 1 1/2 hour, possibly due to large attachment (?); here's a
URL instead:
http://www.joeconway.com/das_data_load_failure2.sql.gz
]
We just came upon a crash bug in Postgres >= 8.2. The attached
standalone scrip
18 matches
Mail list logo
