Hello all,
>
> Hi everyone!
>
>
> Tom Lane Writes:
>
> > Wayne Piekarski <wayne@senet.com.au> writes:
> > > Currently, I start up postmaster with -B 192, which I guess
> puts it below
> > > the value of 256 which causes problems. Apart from when I got past 256
> > > buffers, does the patch fix anything else that might be
> causing problems?
> >
[snip]
>
> Then another one after restarting everything:
>
> ERROR: cannot open segment 1 of relation sessions_done_id_index
>
I got the same error in my test cases.
I don't understand the cause of this error.
But it seems I found another problem instead.
spinlock io_in_progress_lock of a buffer page is not released by operations called by elog() such as
ProcReleaseSpins(),ResetBufferPool()etc.
For example,the error we have encountered probably occured in ReadBufferWithBufferLock(). When elog(ERROR/FATAL)
occursin smgrread/extend() which is called from ReadBufferWithBufferLock(),smgrread/extend() don't release the
io_in_progress_lockspinlock of the page. If other transactions get that page as a free Buffer page,those
transactionswait the release of io_in_progress_lock spinlock and would abort with message such as
> FATAL: s_lock(1800d37c) at bufmgr.c:657, stuck spinlock. Aborting.
>
> FATAL: s_lock(1800d37c) at bufmgr.c:657, stuck spinlock. Aborting.
Comments ?
I don't know details about spinlock stuff.
Sorry,if my thought is off the point.
And I have another question.
It seems elog(FATAL) doesn't release allocated buffer pages.
It's OK ?
AFAIC elog(FATAL) causes proc_exit(0) and proc_exit() doesn't
call ResetBufferPool().
Thanks.
Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue@tpf.co.jp
