| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, "Hackers (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: terminated by signal 6 problem | 
| Date: | 2004-08-11 21:22:29 | 
| Message-ID: | 18873.1092259349@sss.pgh.pa.us | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> I have seen similar when running under heavy load with high frequent 
> insert+delete+vacuum. What happens is that adding another item to an 
> index page in the btree access method fails. It seems to me that the 
> decision to add an item to a page and the real work of actually adding 
> it are not atomic, so that under certain race conditions two backends 
> make the same decision while one would have to split the page.
Sure it is.  _bt_insertonpg is holding an exclusive lock on the page
the entire time.
We've seen reports like this once or twice before, so I think that there
may indeed be some corner-case bug involved, but it's not going to be
possible to find it without a test case ... or at least a debuggable
core dump from the PANIC.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2004-08-11 21:43:44 | Re: terminated by signal 6 problem | 
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2004-08-11 20:54:30 | Re: terminated by signal 6 problem |