Re: Is Patch Ok for deferred trigger disk queue?

From: Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>
To: deststar <deststar(at)blueyonder(dot)co(dot)uk>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Is Patch Ok for deferred trigger disk queue?
Date: 2003-06-30 19:37:39
Message-ID: 20030630123050.X37589-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, deststar wrote:

> Hi,
> I noticed the patch:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2003-06/msg00366.php
> isn't in the patch queue. Is the patch OK?

I think it was just that Bruce hasn't gotten to it.

> If not please say what is wrong with it.

I just checked out a new cvs copy and applied the patch, and did something
like the following:
create table a1(a int unique, b int, c int, unique(b,c));
insert into a1 values (1,1,1);
create table a2(a int references a1(a), b int, c int, foreign
key(b,c) references a1(b,c) initially deferred );
begin;
insert into a2 values (1,1,1);
insert into a2 select * from a2;
[repeated a bunch of times until it'd be inserting 64k rows]

and got an error on writing the disk event handle and a signal 11:

ERROR: Can not open first disk event file handle for
/usr/local/pgsql/data/base/17139/pgsql_tmp/pgsql_tmpdeftrig_555-000000001
The connection to the server was lost. Attempting reset: LOG: server
process (pid 32125) was terminated by signal 11

The backtrace from the core looked like:
#0 0x42062867 in fclose@@GLIBC_2.1 () from /lib/i686/libc.so.6
#1 0x080d61a8 in deferredTriggerClean () at trigger.c:1864
#2 0x080d728e in DeferredTriggerAbortXact () at trigger.c:2642
#3 0x0808c214 in AbortTransaction () at xact.c:1042
#4 0x08141332 in PostgresMain (argc=4, argv=0x826a2f0, username=0x826a2c0
"sszabo") at postgres.c:2610
#5 0x0812320e in BackendFork (port=0x8277080) at postmaster.c:2471
#6 0x08122d1e in BackendStartup (port=0x8277080) at postmaster.c:2118
#7 0x081218ab in ServerLoop () at postmaster.c:1090
#8 0x08121358 in PostmasterMain (argc=3, argv=0x82693e0) at
postmaster.c:872
#9 0x080f9e30 in main (argc=3, argv=0xbffffa94) at main.c:211
#10 0x420158f7 in __libc_start_main () from /lib/i686/libc.so.6

looks like it was passing a NULL file handle if it couldn't be opened.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joe Conway 2003-06-30 19:55:44 Re: [HACKERS] Missing array support
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-06-30 19:37:02 Re: [HACKERS] Missing array support