Re: select_parallel test failure: gather sometimes losing tuples(maybe during rescans)? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On 03/04/2018 03:20 AM, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I saw a one-off failure like this:
> 
>                                   QUERY PLAN
>   --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    Aggregate (actual rows=1 loops=1)
> !    ->  Nested Loop (actual rows=98000 loops=1)
>            ->  Seq Scan on tenk2 (actual rows=10 loops=1)
>                  Filter: (thousand = 0)
>                  Rows Removed by Filter: 9990
> !          ->  Gather (actual rows=9800 loops=10)
>                  Workers Planned: 4
>                  Workers Launched: 4
>                  ->  Parallel Seq Scan on tenk1 (actual rows=1960 loops=50)
> --- 485,495 ----
>                                   QUERY PLAN
>   --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    Aggregate (actual rows=1 loops=1)
> !    ->  Nested Loop (actual rows=97984 loops=1)
>            ->  Seq Scan on tenk2 (actual rows=10 loops=1)
>                  Filter: (thousand = 0)
>                  Rows Removed by Filter: 9990
> !          ->  Gather (actual rows=9798 loops=10)
>                  Workers Planned: 4
>                  Workers Launched: 4
>                  ->  Parallel Seq Scan on tenk1 (actual rows=1960 loops=50)
> 
> 
> Two tuples apparently went missing.
> 
> Similar failures on the build farm:
> 
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=okapi&dt=2018-03-03%2020%3A15%3A01
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=locust&dt=2018-03-03%2018%3A13%3A32
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=prairiedog&dt=2018-03-03%2017%3A55%3A11
> 
> Could this be related to commit
> 34db06ef9a1d7f36391c64293bf1e0ce44a33915 or commit
> 497171d3e2aaeea3b30d710b4e368645ad07ae43?
> 

I think the same failure (or at least very similar plan diff) was
already mentioned here:

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/17385.1520018934@sss.pgh.pa.us

So I guess someone else already noticed, but I don't see the cause
identified in that thread.


regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services