> Well, I found at least part of the problem:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20090606023940.BD4B875331E@cvs.postgresql.org
>
> This is in perfectly sequential code. The reason it has
> nondeterministic effects is that (so far as I can tell) the only
> non-crash case where there would be duplicate TIDs to eliminate is if
> two backends are concurrently flushing an index's pending-inserts list.
> The code is designed to let that happen and suppress the duplicates at
> the very end of the process, in addItemPointersToTuple(); but the
> duplicate-removal logic was broken and allowed extra garbage TIDs to
> creep in. So at least in the case I'm testing, this happens when
> autovacuum fires on the table concurrently with a large insertion.
>
> Please update to CVS HEAD, reindex that index, and then see if you see
> any more strange behavior. I'm not entirely convinced that this is the
> only problem ...
Thanks for investigating the problem. Using CVS HEAD and reindexing
has solved the problems I reported. On Monday I will ask my engineers
try the CVS HEAD and do more operations to see if any strange thing
happen...
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
