Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([2a02:16a8:dc51::56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fnd6w-0002iR-Uk for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 09 Aug 2018 05:03:47 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fnd6u-0004G1-QS for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 09 Aug 2018 05:03:44 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fnd6u-0004Ft-FV for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 09 Aug 2018 05:03:44 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fnd6r-0007P8-Qj for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 09 Aug 2018 05:03:43 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w7953YWN001939; Thu, 9 Aug 2018 01:03:34 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Peter Geoghegan cc: Andrew Dunstan , Andres Freund , PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: buildfarm: could not read block 3 in file "base/16384/2662": read only 0 of 8192 bytes In-reply-to: References: <12259.1532117714@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20180720202450.zcakbvyqksschz5e@alap3.anarazel.de> <20180725230736.nscpb5ad2tl64nez@alap3.anarazel.de> <27669.1533782451@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Peter Geoghegan message dated "Wed, 08 Aug 2018 21:55:23 -0700" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1937.1533791014.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2018 01:03:34 -0400 Message-ID: <1938.1533791014@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Peter Geoghegan writes: > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 7:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Oooh ... but pg_class wouldn't be big enough to get a parallel >> index rebuild during that test, would it? > Typically not, but I don't think that we can rule it out right away. Hmmm ... maybe we should temporarily stick in an elog(LOG) showing whether a parallel build happened or not, so that we can check the buildfarm logs next time we see that failure? > I don't know all that much about the buildfarm client code, and it's > late. It doesn't really stick in any undocumented configuration changes, AFAIK. Possibly Andrew would have some more insight. regards, tom lane