| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: slru.c race condition (was Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags & 0x01)", ) |
| Date: | 2005-10-31 17:46:19 |
| Message-ID: | 20051031174619.GG20349@pervasive.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Sorry, two more things...
Will increasing shared_buffers make this less likely to occur? Or is
this just something that's likely to happen when there are things like
seqscans that are putting buffers near the front of the LRU? (The 8.0.3
buffer manager does something like that, right?)
Is this something that a test case can be created for? I know someone
submitted a framework for doing concurrent testing...
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-10-31 17:56:19 | Re: FKs on temp tables: hard, or just omitted? |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-10-31 17:42:38 | Re: slru.c race condition (was Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags & 0x01)", ) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-10-31 17:56:19 | Re: FKs on temp tables: hard, or just omitted? |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-10-31 17:42:38 | Re: slru.c race condition (was Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags & 0x01)", ) |