Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dean Rasheed
Subject Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill)
Date
Msg-id CAEZATCUnw+yhPd-LTYJx-evEW__m_mveY--Erfts0SwVCchvEQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 22:16, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> > Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> writes:
> >> ...
> >> It looks to me as though the problem is that statext_store() needs to
> >> take its lock on pg_statistic_ext_data *before* searching for the
> >> stats tuple to update.
>
> > Hmm, yeah, that seems like clearly a bad idea.
>
> I pushed a fix for that

Thanks for doing that (looks like it was my mistake originally).

> but I think it must be unrelated to the
> buildfarm failures we're seeing.  For that coding to be a problem,
> it would have to run concurrently with a VACUUM FULL or CLUSTER
> on pg_statistic_ext_data (which would give all the tuples new TIDs).
> AFAICS that won't happen with the tests that are giving trouble.
>

Yeah, that makes sense. I still can't see what might be causing those
failures. The tests that were doing an ALTER COLUMN and then expecting
to see the results of a non-analysed table ought to be fixed by
0936d1b6f, but that doesn't match the buildfarm failures. Possibly
0936d1b6f will help with those anyway, but if so, it'll be annoying
not understanding why.

Regards,
Dean



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Julien Rouhaud
Date:
Subject: Re: WAL usage calculation patch
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: pgbench - add \aset to store results of a combined query