| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: PANIC: invalid index offnum: 186 when processing BRIN indexes in VACUUM |
| Date: | 2017-11-02 16:20:48 |
| Message-ID: | 30317.1509639648@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
>> Hmm, I'm pretty sure we stress-tested brin in pretty much the same way.
>> But I see this misbehavior too. Looking ...
> Turns out that this is related to concurrent growth of the table while
> the summarization process is scanning -- so new pages have appeared at
> the end of the table after the end point has been determined. It would
> be a pain to determine number of blocks for each range, so I'm looking
> for a simple way to fix it without imposing so much overhead.
Where are we on this --- do you want me to push the brin_doupdate
fix I proposed, or were you intending to merge that into a
larger patch? If I'm to do it, is there a reason not to back-patch
to all branches with BRIN?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-11-02 16:23:55 | Re: Re: PANIC: invalid index offnum: 186 when processing BRIN indexes in VACUUM |
| Previous Message | Bernd Helmle | 2017-11-02 16:18:25 | Minor comment issue in receivelog.c |