From: daveg <daveg@sonic.net>
To: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>
Cc: David Christensen <david@endpoint.com>
Cc: Maxim Boguk <maxim.boguk@gmail.com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag was incorrectly set happend during repeatable vacuum
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 01:02:03 -0800
Message-ID: <20110304090203.GF4053@sonic.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=wKkEX_gX9-XOFm2DP85HvEAAJc4zUtD_509MQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTino+Gc2vvOVdzCPRRXW-N7R5=ikYMnNKT5W=mk1@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikw==USr3+4Mt+w97P3ymux-Bhn0G7Ad0ZJHbqG@mail.gmail.com>
<4D2D6A56.9060808@enterprisedb.com>
<20110228212832.GH26397@sonic.net>
<1B3CCBDD-4AC6-404A-9E26-DB4CA2554228@endpoint.com>
<AANLkTi=xq4SV6jwA7txvrbEWocyeiU6XiTG=-zVy+7Dq@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=Ye7AoF7_uVQfPVn-ok2VOp65mi0xU3H7kCke3@mail.gmail.com>
<20110303071208.GA4053@sonic.net>
<4D6F4E5D.6080507@enterprisedb.com>
<AANLkTi=wKkEX_gX9-XOFm2DP85HvEAAJc4zUtD_509MQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 09:04:04AM -0600, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> > On 03.03.2011 09:12, daveg wrote:
> >>
> >> Question: what would be the consequence of simply patching out the setting
> >> of this flag? Assuming that the incorrect PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag is the only
> >> problem (big assumption perhaps) then simply never setting it would at
> >> least
> >> avoid the possibility of returning wrong answers, presumably at some
> >> performance cost. We possibly could live with that until we get a handle
> >> on the real cause and fix.
> >
> > Yes. With that assumption.
> >
> > If you really want to do that, I would suggest the attached patch instead.
> > This just disables the optimization in seqscans to trust it, so an
> > incorrectly set flag won't affect correctness of query results, but the
> > flag is still set as usual and you still get the warnings so that we can
> > continue to debug the issue.
>
> This. The mis-set flag can is likely a bug/concurrency issue etc,
> but could also be a symptom of more sinister data corruption. I did
> various vacuum experiments all day yesterday on my windows workstation
> and was not able to produce any mis-flags. I trust iscsi more than
> nfs, but maybe there is a connection here that is hardware based. hm.
> do you think it would be helpful to know what is causing the
> all_visible flag to get flipped? If so, the attached patch shows
> which case is throwing it...
I'll apply your patch and try it. Probably can only do it for a few minutes
tomorrow evening though as the output is huge and we have only limited down
time availability.
-dg
--
David Gould daveg@sonic.net 510 536 1443 510 282 0869
If simplicity worked, the world would be overrun with insects.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Cc: daveg@sonic.net, mmoncure@gmail.com, heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, gsstark@mit.edu, david@endpoint.com, maxim.boguk@gmail.com, masao.fujii@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag was incorrectly set happend during repeatable vacuum
In-Reply-To: <20110304090203.GF4053@sonic.net>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox