From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Failures in constraints regression test, "read only 0 of 8192 bytes" |
Date: | 2024-03-02 21:39:57 |
Message-ID: | CA+hUKGK+5DOmLaBp3Z7C4S-Yv6yoROvr1UncjH2S1ZbPT8D+Zg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
These two animals seem to have got mixed up about about the size of
this relation in the same place:
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=avocet&dt=2024-02-28%2017%3A34%3A30
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=trilobite&dt=2024-03-01%2006%3A47%3A53
+++ /home/buildfarm/trilobite/buildroot/HEAD/pgsql.build/src/test/regress/results/constraints.out
2024-03-01 08:22:11.624897033 +0100
@@ -573,42 +573,38 @@
UNIQUE (i) DEFERRABLE INITIALLY DEFERRED;
BEGIN;
INSERT INTO unique_tbl VALUES (1, 'five');
+ERROR: could not read blocks 0..0 in file "base/16384/21437": read
only 0 of 8192 bytes
That error message changed slightly in my smgrreadv() commit a couple
of months ago (it would have been "block 0" and now it's "blocks 0..0"
because now we can read more than one block at a time) but I don't
immediately see how anything at that low level could be responsible
for this.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Melanie Plageman | 2024-03-02 22:11:11 | Re: BitmapHeapScan streaming read user and prelim refactoring |
Previous Message | Melanie Plageman | 2024-03-02 20:19:51 | Re: CF entries for 17 to be reviewed |