Re: [HACKERS] Frustration

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: "Michael Simms" <grim(at)argh(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Frustration
Date: 1999-09-27 13:20:26
Message-ID: 25950.938438426@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> Different from other spinlocks,io_in_progress spinlock is a per bufpage
> spinlock and ProcReleaseSpins() doesn't release the spinlock.
> If an error(in md.c in most cases) occured while holding the spinlock
> ,the spinlock would necessarily freeze.

Oooh, good point. Shouldn't this be fixed? If we don't fix it, then
a disk I/O error will translate to an installation-wide shutdown and
restart as soon as some backend tries to touch the locked page (as
indeed was happening to Michael). That seems a tad extreme.

> Michael Simms says
> ERROR: cannot read block 641 of server
> occured before the spinlock stuck abort.
> Probably it is an original cause of the spinlock freeze.

I seem to have missed the message containing that bit of info,
but it certainly suggests that your diagnosis is correct.

> However I don't understand the following status of his machine.
> /dev/sda1 30356106785018642307 43892061535609608 0 100%

Now that we know the root problem was disk driver flakiness, I think
we can write that off as Not Our Fault ;-)

regards, tom lane

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 1999-09-27 13:29:31 Re: [HACKERS] int8 and index
Previous Message Zakkr 1999-09-27 13:11:10 _text problem in union