| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Konstantin Knizhnik <knizhnik(at)garret(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Non-reproducible AIO failure |
| Date: | 2025-06-08 18:51:11 |
| Message-ID: | ziijmkyltlgqh47mvnfbo4vjwq6lzor6euy7kt4vk2epy43bzw@xqteb5mcdtxa |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2025-06-06 15:37:45 -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> There shouldn't be any concurrent accesses here, so I don't really see how the
> above would explain the problem (the IO can only ever be modified by one
> backend, initially the "owning backend", then, when submitted, by the IO
> worker, and then again by the backend).
The symptoms I can reproduce are slightly different than Alexander's - it's
the assertion failure reported upthread by Tom.
FWIW, I can continue to repro the assertion after removing the use of the
bitfield in PgAioHandle. So the problem indeed seems to be be independent of
the bitfields.
I'm continuing to investigate.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Treat | 2025-06-08 18:53:20 | Re: [PATCH] Re: Proposal to Enable/Disable Index using ALTER INDEX |
| Previous Message | jian he | 2025-06-08 16:05:59 | Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY? |