| From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, tender wang <tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: SLRU optimization - configurable buffer pool and partitioning the SLRU lock |
| Date: | 2024-04-03 14:18:35 |
| Message-ID: | CAFiTN-vB6DOZQSwBEstW_zXOh=r29+mqMOuToA33UMHqfdVSUQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 7:40 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On 2024-Apr-03, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
>
> > I've managed to trigger an assert added by 53c2a97a9.
> > Please try the following script against a server compiled with
> > -DTEST_SUMMARIZE_SERIAL (initially I observed this failure without the
> > define, it just simplifies reproducing...):
>
> Ah yes, absolutely, we're missing to trade the correct SLRU bank lock
> there. This rewrite of that small piece should fix it. Thanks for
> reporting this.
>
Yeah, we missed acquiring the bank lock w.r.t. intervening pages,
thanks for reporting. Your fix looks correct to me.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tristan Partin | 2024-04-03 14:20:36 | Re: psql not responding to SIGINT upon db reconnection |
| Previous Message | Melanie Plageman | 2024-04-03 14:18:13 | Re: Combine Prune and Freeze records emitted by vacuum |