| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Odd, intermittent failure in contrib/pageinspect |
| Date: | 2021-01-18 22:47:40 |
| Message-ID: | 416876.1611010060@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:
> On 2021-Jan-18, Tom Lane wrote:
>> [ thinks for a bit... ] Does the checkpointer pin pages it's writing
>> out? I guess it'd have to ...
> It does, per SyncOneBuffer(), called from BufferSync(), called from
> CheckPointBuffers().
Right, then we don't need any strange theories about autovacuum,
just bad timing luck. whelk does seem pretty slow, so it's not
much of a stretch to imagine that it's more susceptible to this
corner case than faster machines.
So, do we have any other tests that are invoking a manual vacuum
and assuming it won't skip any pages? By this theory, they'd
all be failures waiting to happen.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2021-01-18 22:54:22 | Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan |
| Previous Message | Tom Kincaid | 2021-01-18 22:47:34 | Re: Key management with tests |