| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: anole: assorted stability problems |
| Date: | 2015-06-29 01:10:33 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZwVVh4vf=4Tfj-f3_jMogZXhxp6-0SL-TtGMjurayNYg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 7:27 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I'd hoped that commit 1b468a131bd260c9041484f78b8580c7f232d580 would
> resolve this, but nope, anole is still getting occasional stuck spinlocks:
> http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=anole&dt=2015-06-28%2021%3A35%3A02
That sucks. It was easy to see that the old fallback barrier
implementation wasn't re-entrant, but this one should be. And now
that I look at it again, doesn't the failure message indicate that's
not the problem anyway?
! PANIC: stuck spinlock (c00000000d6f4140) detected at lwlock.c:816
! PANIC: stuck spinlock (c00000000d72f6e0) detected at lwlock.c:770
That's just a straight-up SpinLockAcquire(), not a barrier call.
The May 5th failure looked like this:
! FATAL: semop(id=0) failed: Result too large
The May 1st failure seems to have died here:
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-06-29 01:13:10 | Re: anole: assorted stability problems |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2015-06-29 01:00:19 | Re: drop/truncate table sucks for large values of shared buffers |