From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: "multiple backends attempting to wait for pincount 1" |
Date: | 2015-02-13 23:05:16 |
Message-ID: | 1387048438.2773502.1423868716121.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> How did you get to that recipe?
I have been working on some patches to allow vacuum to function in
the face of long-held snapshots. (I'm struggling to get them into
presentable shape for the upcoming CF.) I was devising the most
diabolical cases I could to try to break my patched code and
started seeing this error. I was panicked that I had introduced
the bug, but on comparing to the master branch I found I was able
to cause it there, too. So I saw this a couple days before the
report on list, and had some cases that *sometimes* caused the
error. I tweaked until it seemed to be pretty reliable, and then
used that for the bisect.
I still consider you to be the uncontested champion of diabolical
test cases, but I'm happy to have hit upon one that was useful
here. ;-)
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2015-02-13 23:10:25 | Re: Strange assertion using VACOPT_FREEZE in vacuum.c |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-02-13 22:38:37 | Re: "multiple backends attempting to wait for pincount 1" |