Re: VACUUM/t_ctid bug (was Re: GiST concurrency commited) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Teodor Sigaev
Subject Re: VACUUM/t_ctid bug (was Re: GiST concurrency commited)
Date
Msg-id 43142620.2010405@sigaev.ru
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: VACUUM/t_ctid bug (was Re: GiST concurrency commited)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: VACUUM/t_ctid bug (was Re: GiST concurrency commited)
Re: VACUUM/t_ctid bug (was Re: GiST concurrency commited)
List pgsql-hackers
Fixed in 8.0, 7.4 and 7.3 branches.

Tom Lane wrote:
> Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru> writes:
> 
>>http://www.sigaev.ru/gist/concur.pl
>>http://www.sigaev.ru/gist/concur.sh
> 
> 
> BTW, these scripts seem to indicate that there's a GIST or
> contrib/intarray problem in the 8.0 branch.  I was trying to use 'em
> to test REL8_0_STABLE branch tip to verify my t_ctid chain backpatch,
> and I pretty consistently see "Problem with update":
> 
> Start: parallel mode with 4 flows
> Problem with update {77,77}:0 count:1 at concur.pl line 91.
> Issuing rollback() for database handle being DESTROY'd without explicit disconnect().
> Problem with update {43,24}:3 count:1 at concur.pl line 91.
> Issuing rollback() for database handle being DESTROY'd without explicit disconnect().
> Problem with update {43,43}:2 count:1 at concur.pl line 91.
> Issuing rollback() for database handle being DESTROY'd without explicit disconnect().
> 1 flow finish. Stats: ni:75000 nu:1661 nd:216 nv:13(nf:3) nt:780
> All flow finish; status: 255; elapsed time: 265.48 sec
> 
> Is this something that can be fixed for 8.0.4?
> 
>             regards, tom lane

-- 
Teodor Sigaev                                   E-mail: teodor@sigaev.ru
  WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Query Sampling
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Pre-allocated free space for row updating (like