Re: Backend stuck in tirigger.c:afterTriggerInvokeEvents forever

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, cbw <cbwhitebu(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Backend stuck in tirigger.c:afterTriggerInvokeEvents forever
Date: 2020-04-23 03:39:34
Message-ID: 20200423033934.657eliy622hf2wjr@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Hi,

On 2020-04-21 11:19:35 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2020-Apr-21, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > A variant of that theory is that foreign key trigger firings are being
> > skipped in one case but not the other; but offhand I think those
> > optimizations only apply to update/delete cases not inserts. Anyway
> > that still requires some assumptions about moving parts that you
> > haven't shown us.
>
> I wonder if there are any funny interactions between trigger tuple
> acquisition and the ON CONFLICT stuff. The only thing that occurs to me
> to explain the fact that it only fails with the two stmts in the DO
> block is that the second insert can see rows as inserted by the same
> transaction.

I wonder if there's potentially some issue with the wrong snapshot being
used for the different statements...

> I would start by taking a few dozen backtraces and comparing them to see
> if any progress is being made.

It could also be informative to look at the walstream with pg_waldump
while the problem is occuring. Would tell us about row locks acquired
during on conflict / trigger handling etc.

> The fact that this reproduces in 11.2 would seem to discard theories
> about tuple table slot changes and table AM.

Phew ;)

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2020-04-23 05:05:46 Re: [BUG] non archived WAL removed during production crash recovery
Previous Message Andres Freund 2020-04-23 03:00:07 Re: BUG #16112: large, unexpected memory consumption