| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: v16dev: TRAP: failed Assert("size > SizeOfXLogRecord"), File: "xlog.c", Line: 1055, PID: 13564 |
| Date: | 2023-04-17 18:26:22 |
| Message-ID: | 2496923.1681755982@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2023-04-17 13:50:30 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So previously, log_newpage_range could only have failed in very
>> unlikely circumstances, whereas now it's not hard to hit when
>> committing a table creation. I wonder what other bugs may be
>> lurking.
> Oh, interesting. We haven't initialized the extra pages added by
> RelationAddExtraBlocks() (in <= 15) for quite a while now, so I'm a bit
> surprised it causes more issues for the VM / FSM. I guess it's that it's quite
> common in real workloads to contend on the extension lock and add extra
> blocks, but not in simple single-threaded tests?
I haven't tried hard to run it to ground, but maybe log_newpage_range
isn't used in that code path? Seems like we'd have detected this
before now if the case were reachable without any crash involved.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-04-17 18:33:38 | Re: Move defaults toward ICU in 16? |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2023-04-17 18:02:15 | Re: Move defaults toward ICU in 16? |