Re: buildfarm: could not read block 3 in file "base/16384/2662": read only 0 of 8192 bytes

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: buildfarm: could not read block 3 in file "base/16384/2662": read only 0 of 8192 bytes
Date: 2018-09-05 19:46:45
Message-ID: 14220.1536176805@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>> One concern I have with your approach is that it isn't particularly
>> bullet-proof for cases where the rebuild is triggered by something that
>> doesn't hold a conflicting lock.

> Wouldn't that be a bug in the something-else?

So where are we on this? Should I proceed with my patch, or are we
going to do further investigation? Does anyone want to do an actual
patch review?

I think it's important to have some fix in place in time for the next
11beta release, so time grows short ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2018-09-05 20:05:42 Re: pgsql: Clean up after TAP tests in oid2name and vacuumlo.
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-09-05 19:39:50 Re: On the need for a snapshot in exec_bind_message()