| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net>, satyanarlapuram(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: Add pg_stat_autovacuum_priority |
| Date: | 2026-04-08 17:56:09 |
| Message-ID: | adaWuTR7oCKodH7k@nathan |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 08, 2026 at 01:17:45PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Please look at a new anomaly, I and SQLsmith have discovered:
>> SELECT (SELECT score FROM pg_stat_get_autovacuum_scores() LIMIT 1),
>> (SELECT score FROM pg_stat_get_autovacuum_scores() LIMIT 1);
>> ERROR: detected double pfree in PgStat Snapshot 0x5f6fa4d95d50
>
> Good catch, but you're not the first:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHewXNkJKdwb3D5OnksrdOqzqUnXUEMpDam1TPW0vfUkW%3D7jUw%40mail.gmail.com
Hm. I can't get excited about checking pgstat_fetch_consistency (as
proposed in that other report), but I see that commit 02502c1bca added the
freeing behavior in question. I wonder if it makes sense to just skip
freeing when relation_needs_vacanalyze() is called from the view, i.e., not
an autovacuum worker. On the other hand, maybe we shouldn't be caching
entries for a view like this that looks through all tables in the
database...
--
nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2026-04-08 18:04:02 | Re: bump minimum supported version of psql and pg_{dump,dumpall,upgrade} to v10 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2026-04-08 17:55:30 | Re: bump minimum supported version of psql and pg_{dump,dumpall,upgrade} to v10 |