Re: buildfarm: could not read block 3 in file "base/16384/2662": read only 0 of 8192 bytes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: buildfarm: could not read block 3 in file "base/16384/2662": read only 0 of 8192 bytes
Date
Msg-id 14904.1535759623@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: buildfarm: could not read block 3 in file "base/16384/2662":read only 0 of 8192 bytes  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: buildfarm: could not read block 3 in file "base/16384/2662":read only 0 of 8192 bytes  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> Leaving that aside, I think there's one architectural aspect of my
> approach that I prefer over yours: Deduplicating eager cache rebuilds
> like my approach does seems quite advantageous.

That is attractive, for sure, but the other side of the coin is that
getting there seems to require a lot of ticklish redesign.  We would
certainly not consider back-patching such a change normally, and I'm
unconvinced that we should do so in this case.

My thought is to do (and back-patch) my change, and then work on yours
as a performance improvement for HEAD only.  I don't believe that yours
would make mine redundant, either --- they are good complementary changes
to make real sure we have no remaining bugs of this ilk.  (In particular,
no matter how much de-duplication we do, we'll still have scenarios with
recursive cache flushes; so I'm not quite convinced that your solution
provides a 100% fix by itself.)

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: Some pgq table rewrite incompatibility with logical decoding?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_verify_checksums and -fno-strict-aliasing