public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feed"ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial
20+ messages / 7 participants
[nested] [flat]
* "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial
@ 2022-05-25 00:45 Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Munro @ 2022-05-25 00:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-hackers; +Cc: CM Team <[email protected]>
Hi,
A couple of recent isolation test failures reported $SUBJECT.
It could be a bug in recent-ish latch refactoring work, though I don't
know why it would show up twice just recently.
Just BTW, that animal has shown signs of a flaky toolchain before[1].
I know we have quite a lot of museum exhibits in the 'farm, in terms
of hardare, OS, and tool chain. In some cases, they're probably just
forgotten/not on anyone's upgrade radar. If they've shown signs of
misbehaving, maybe it's time to figure out if they can be upgraded?
For example, it'd be nice to be able to rule out problems in GCC 4.6.0
(that's like running PostgreSQL 9.1.0, in terms of vintage,
unsupported status, and long list of missing bugfixes from the time
when it was supported).
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/[email protected]...
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial
@ 2022-05-25 01:24 Andres Freund <[email protected]>
parent: Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Andres Freund @ 2022-05-25 01:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Munro <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-hackers; CM Team <[email protected]>
Hi,
On 2022-05-25 12:45:21 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> A couple of recent isolation test failures reported $SUBJECT.
Was that just on gharial?
> It could be a bug in recent-ish latch refactoring work, though I don't
> know why it would show up twice just recently.
Yea, that's weird.
> Just BTW, that animal has shown signs of a flaky toolchain before[1].
> I know we have quite a lot of museum exhibits in the 'farm, in terms
> of hardare, OS, and tool chain. In some cases, they're probably just
> forgotten/not on anyone's upgrade radar. If they've shown signs of
> misbehaving, maybe it's time to figure out if they can be upgraded?
> For example, it'd be nice to be able to rule out problems in GCC 4.6.0
> (that's like running PostgreSQL 9.1.0, in terms of vintage,
> unsupported status, and long list of missing bugfixes from the time
> when it was supported).
Yea. gcc 4.6.0 is pretty ridiculous - the only thing we gain by testing with a
.0 compiler of that vintage is pain. Could it be upgraded?
TBH, I think we should just desupport HPUX. It's makework to support it at
this point. 11.31 v3 is about to be old enough to drink in quite a few
countries...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial
@ 2022-05-25 01:44 Tom Lane <[email protected]>
parent: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2022-05-25 01:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andres Freund <[email protected]>; +Cc: Thomas Munro <[email protected]>; pgsql-hackers; CM Team <[email protected]>
Andres Freund <[email protected]> writes:
> On 2022-05-25 12:45:21 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> I know we have quite a lot of museum exhibits in the 'farm, in terms
>> of hardare, OS, and tool chain. In some cases, they're probably just
>> forgotten/not on anyone's upgrade radar. If they've shown signs of
>> misbehaving, maybe it's time to figure out if they can be upgraded?
> TBH, I think we should just desupport HPUX.
I think there's going to be a significant die-off of old BF animals
when (if?) we convert over to the meson build system; it's just not
going to be worth the trouble to upgrade those platforms to be able
to run meson and ninja. I'm inclined to wait until that's over and
see what's still standing before we make decisions about officially
desupporting things.
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial
@ 2022-05-25 06:46 Noah Misch <[email protected]>
parent: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Noah Misch @ 2022-05-25 06:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andres Freund <[email protected]>; CM Team <[email protected]>; +Cc: Thomas Munro <[email protected]>; pgsql-hackers
On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 06:24:39PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2022-05-25 12:45:21 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > Just BTW, that animal has shown signs of a flaky toolchain before[1].
> > I know we have quite a lot of museum exhibits in the 'farm, in terms
> > of hardare, OS, and tool chain. In some cases, they're probably just
> > forgotten/not on anyone's upgrade radar. If they've shown signs of
> > misbehaving, maybe it's time to figure out if they can be upgraded?
> > For example, it'd be nice to be able to rule out problems in GCC 4.6.0
> > (that's like running PostgreSQL 9.1.0, in terms of vintage,
> > unsupported status, and long list of missing bugfixes from the time
> > when it was supported).
>
> Yea. gcc 4.6.0 is pretty ridiculous - the only thing we gain by testing with a
> .0 compiler of that vintage is pain. Could it be upgraded?
+1, this is at least the third non-obvious miscompilation from gharial.
Installing the latest GCC that builds easily (perhaps GCC 10.3) would make
this a good buildfarm member again. If that won't happen, at least add a note
to the animal like described in
https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial
@ 2022-05-25 14:25 Tom Lane <[email protected]>
parent: Noah Misch <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2022-05-25 14:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Noah Misch <[email protected]>; +Cc: Andres Freund <[email protected]>; CM Team <[email protected]>; Thomas Munro <[email protected]>; pgsql-hackers
Noah Misch <[email protected]> writes:
> +1, this is at least the third non-obvious miscompilation from gharial.
Is there any evidence that this is a compiler-sourced problem?
Maybe it is, but it's sure not obvious to me (he says, eyeing his
buildfarm animals with even older gcc versions).
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial
@ 2022-05-26 01:50 Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
parent: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Munro @ 2022-05-26 01:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>; +Cc: Noah Misch <[email protected]>; Andres Freund <[email protected]>; CM Team <[email protected]>; pgsql-hackers
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 2:25 AM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
> Noah Misch <[email protected]> writes:
> > +1, this is at least the third non-obvious miscompilation from gharial.
>
> Is there any evidence that this is a compiler-sourced problem?
> Maybe it is, but it's sure not obvious to me (he says, eyeing his
> buildfarm animals with even older gcc versions).
Sorry for the ambiguity -- I have no evidence of miscompilation. My
"just BTW" paragraph was a reaction to the memory of the last couple
of times Noah and I wasted hours chasing red herrings on this system,
which is pretty demotivating when looking into an unexplained failure.
On a more practical note, I don't have access to the BF database right
now. Would you mind checking if "latch already owned" has occurred on
any other animals?
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial
@ 2022-05-26 02:35 Tom Lane <[email protected]>
parent: Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2022-05-26 02:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Munro <[email protected]>; +Cc: Noah Misch <[email protected]>; Andres Freund <[email protected]>; CM Team <[email protected]>; pgsql-hackers
Thomas Munro <[email protected]> writes:
> Sorry for the ambiguity -- I have no evidence of miscompilation. My
> "just BTW" paragraph was a reaction to the memory of the last couple
> of times Noah and I wasted hours chasing red herrings on this system,
> which is pretty demotivating when looking into an unexplained failure.
I can't deny that those HPUX animals have produced more than their
fair share of problems.
> On a more practical note, I don't have access to the BF database right
> now. Would you mind checking if "latch already owned" has occurred on
> any other animals?
Looking back 6 months, these are the only occurrences of that string
in failed tests:
sysname | branch | snapshot | stage | l
---------+--------+---------------------+----------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------
gharial | HEAD | 2022-04-28 23:37:51 | Check | 2022-04-28 18:36:26.981 MDT [22642:1] ERROR: latch already owned
gharial | HEAD | 2022-05-06 11:33:11 | IsolationCheck | 2022-05-06 10:10:52.727 MDT [7366:1] ERROR: latch already owned
gharial | HEAD | 2022-05-24 06:31:31 | IsolationCheck | 2022-05-24 02:44:51.850 MDT [13089:1] ERROR: latch already owned
(3 rows)
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial
@ 2022-05-27 11:54 Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
parent: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Munro @ 2022-05-27 11:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>; +Cc: Noah Misch <[email protected]>; Andres Freund <[email protected]>; CM Team <[email protected]>; pgsql-hackers
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 2:35 PM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thomas Munro <[email protected]> writes:
> > On a more practical note, I don't have access to the BF database right
> > now. Would you mind checking if "latch already owned" has occurred on
> > any other animals?
>
> Looking back 6 months, these are the only occurrences of that string
> in failed tests:
>
> sysname | branch | snapshot | stage | l
> ---------+--------+---------------------+----------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------
> gharial | HEAD | 2022-04-28 23:37:51 | Check | 2022-04-28 18:36:26.981 MDT [22642:1] ERROR: latch already owned
> gharial | HEAD | 2022-05-06 11:33:11 | IsolationCheck | 2022-05-06 10:10:52.727 MDT [7366:1] ERROR: latch already owned
> gharial | HEAD | 2022-05-24 06:31:31 | IsolationCheck | 2022-05-24 02:44:51.850 MDT [13089:1] ERROR: latch already owned
> (3 rows)
Thanks. Hmm. So far it's always a parallel worker. The best idea I
have is to include the ID of the mystery PID in the error message and
see if that provides a clue next time.
Attachments:
[text/x-patch] log-pid.patch (735B, ../../CA+hUKG+YuSJzKtJkGaXnD+JpZ0MFB5RBdhHK9_VOgzOVSSNyWA@mail.gmail.com/2-log-pid.patch)
download | inline diff:
diff --git a/src/backend/storage/ipc/latch.c b/src/backend/storage/ipc/latch.c
index 78c6a89271..07b8273a7d 100644
--- a/src/backend/storage/ipc/latch.c
+++ b/src/backend/storage/ipc/latch.c
@@ -402,6 +402,8 @@ InitSharedLatch(Latch *latch)
void
OwnLatch(Latch *latch)
{
+ pid_t previous_owner;
+
/* Sanity checks */
Assert(latch->is_shared);
@@ -410,8 +412,11 @@ OwnLatch(Latch *latch)
Assert(selfpipe_readfd >= 0 && selfpipe_owner_pid == MyProcPid);
#endif
- if (latch->owner_pid != 0)
- elog(ERROR, "latch already owned");
+ previous_owner = latch->owner_pid;
+ if (previous_owner != 0)
+ elog(ERROR,
+ "latch already owned by PID %lu",
+ (unsigned long) previous_owner);
latch->owner_pid = MyProcPid;
}
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial
@ 2022-05-27 13:56 Robert Haas <[email protected]>
parent: Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Robert Haas @ 2022-05-27 13:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Munro <[email protected]>; +Cc: Tom Lane <[email protected]>; Noah Misch <[email protected]>; Andres Freund <[email protected]>; CM Team <[email protected]>; pgsql-hackers
On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 7:55 AM Thomas Munro <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks. Hmm. So far it's always a parallel worker. The best idea I
> have is to include the ID of the mystery PID in the error message and
> see if that provides a clue next time.
What I'm inclined to do is get gharial and anole removed from the
buildfarm. anole was set up by Heikki in 2011. I don't know when
gharial was set up, or by whom. I don't think anyone at EDB cares
about these machines any more, or has any interest in maintaining
them. I think the only reason they're still running is that, just by
good fortune, they haven't fallen over and died yet. The hardest part
of getting them taken out of the buildfarm is likely to be finding
someone who has a working username and password to log into them and
take the jobs out of the crontab.
If someone really cares about figuring out what's going on here, it's
probably possible to get someone who is an EDB employee access to the
box to chase it down. But I'm having a hard time understanding what
value we get out of that given that the machines are running an
11-year-old compiler version on discontinued hardware on a
discontinued operating system. Even if we find a bug in PostgreSQL,
it's likely to be a bug that only matters on systems nobody cares
about.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial
@ 2022-05-27 14:21 Tom Lane <[email protected]>
parent: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2022-05-27 14:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Haas <[email protected]>; +Cc: Thomas Munro <[email protected]>; Noah Misch <[email protected]>; Andres Freund <[email protected]>; CM Team <[email protected]>; pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <[email protected]> writes:
> On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 7:55 AM Thomas Munro <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Thanks. Hmm. So far it's always a parallel worker. The best idea I
>> have is to include the ID of the mystery PID in the error message and
>> see if that provides a clue next time.
> ... Even if we find a bug in PostgreSQL,
> it's likely to be a bug that only matters on systems nobody cares
> about.
That's possible, certainly. It's also possible that it's a real bug
that so far has only manifested there for (say) timing reasons.
The buildfarm is not so large that we can write off single-machine
failures as being unlikely to hit in the real world.
What I'd suggest is to promote that failure to elog(PANIC), which
would at least give us the PID and if we're lucky a stack trace.
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial
@ 2022-05-27 19:44 Robert Haas <[email protected]>
parent: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Robert Haas @ 2022-05-27 19:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>; +Cc: Thomas Munro <[email protected]>; Noah Misch <[email protected]>; Andres Freund <[email protected]>; CM Team <[email protected]>; pgsql-hackers
On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 10:21 AM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
> That's possible, certainly. It's also possible that it's a real bug
> that so far has only manifested there for (say) timing reasons.
> The buildfarm is not so large that we can write off single-machine
> failures as being unlikely to hit in the real world.
>
> What I'd suggest is to promote that failure to elog(PANIC), which
> would at least give us the PID and if we're lucky a stack trace.
That proposed change is fine with me.
As to the question of whether it's a real bug, nobody can prove
anything unless we actually run it down. It's just a question of what
you think the odds are. Noah's PGCon talk a few years back on the long
tail of buildfarm failures convinced me (perhaps unintentionally) that
low-probability failures that occur only on obscure systems or
configurations are likely not worth running down, because while they
COULD be real bugs, a lot of them aren't, and the time it would take
to figure it out could be spent on other things - for instance, fixing
things that we know for certain are bugs. Spending 40 hours of
person-time on something with a 10% chance of being a bug in the
PostgreSQL code doesn't necessarily make sense to me, because while
you are correct that the buildfarm isn't that large, neither is the
developer community.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial
@ 2022-05-27 20:11 Tom Lane <[email protected]>
parent: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2022-05-27 20:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Haas <[email protected]>; +Cc: Thomas Munro <[email protected]>; Noah Misch <[email protected]>; Andres Freund <[email protected]>; CM Team <[email protected]>; pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <[email protected]> writes:
> On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 10:21 AM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
>> What I'd suggest is to promote that failure to elog(PANIC), which
>> would at least give us the PID and if we're lucky a stack trace.
> That proposed change is fine with me.
> As to the question of whether it's a real bug, nobody can prove
> anything unless we actually run it down.
Agreed, and I'll even grant your point that if it is an HPUX-specific
or IA64-specific bug, it is not worth spending huge amounts of time
to isolate. The problem is that we don't know that. What we do know
so far is that if it can occur elsewhere, it's rare --- so we'd better
be prepared to glean as much info as possible if we do get such a
failure. Hence my thought of s/ERROR/PANIC/. And I'd be in favor of
any other low-effort change we can make to instrument the case better.
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial
@ 2022-05-31 00:08 Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
parent: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Munro @ 2022-05-31 00:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>; +Cc: Robert Haas <[email protected]>; Noah Misch <[email protected]>; Andres Freund <[email protected]>; CM Team <[email protected]>; pgsql-hackers
On Sat, May 28, 2022 at 8:11 AM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robert Haas <[email protected]> writes:
> > On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 10:21 AM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> What I'd suggest is to promote that failure to elog(PANIC), which
> >> would at least give us the PID and if we're lucky a stack trace.
>
> > That proposed change is fine with me.
>
> > As to the question of whether it's a real bug, nobody can prove
> > anything unless we actually run it down.
>
> Agreed, and I'll even grant your point that if it is an HPUX-specific
> or IA64-specific bug, it is not worth spending huge amounts of time
> to isolate. The problem is that we don't know that. What we do know
> so far is that if it can occur elsewhere, it's rare --- so we'd better
> be prepared to glean as much info as possible if we do get such a
> failure. Hence my thought of s/ERROR/PANIC/. And I'd be in favor of
> any other low-effort change we can make to instrument the case better.
OK, pushed (except I realised that all the PIDs involved were int, not
pid_t). Let's see...
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial
@ 2022-05-31 00:31 Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
parent: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Munro @ 2022-05-31 00:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Haas <[email protected]>; +Cc: Tom Lane <[email protected]>; Noah Misch <[email protected]>; Andres Freund <[email protected]>; CM Team <[email protected]>; pgsql-hackers
On Sat, May 28, 2022 at 1:56 AM Robert Haas <[email protected]> wrote:
> What I'm inclined to do is get gharial and anole removed from the
> buildfarm. anole was set up by Heikki in 2011. I don't know when
> gharial was set up, or by whom. I don't think anyone at EDB cares
> about these machines any more, or has any interest in maintaining
> them. I think the only reason they're still running is that, just by
> good fortune, they haven't fallen over and died yet. The hardest part
> of getting them taken out of the buildfarm is likely to be finding
> someone who has a working username and password to log into them and
> take the jobs out of the crontab.
FWIW, in a previous investigation, Semab and Sandeep had access:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CABimMB4mRs9N3eivR-%3DqF9M8oWc5E6OX7GywsWF0DXN4P5gNEA%40mail.g...
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial
@ 2022-05-31 12:20 Robert Haas <[email protected]>
parent: Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Robert Haas @ 2022-05-31 12:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Munro <[email protected]>; +Cc: Tom Lane <[email protected]>; Noah Misch <[email protected]>; Andres Freund <[email protected]>; CM Team <[email protected]>; pgsql-hackers
On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 8:31 PM Thomas Munro <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, May 28, 2022 at 1:56 AM Robert Haas <[email protected]> wrote:
> > What I'm inclined to do is get gharial and anole removed from the
> > buildfarm. anole was set up by Heikki in 2011. I don't know when
> > gharial was set up, or by whom. I don't think anyone at EDB cares
> > about these machines any more, or has any interest in maintaining
> > them. I think the only reason they're still running is that, just by
> > good fortune, they haven't fallen over and died yet. The hardest part
> > of getting them taken out of the buildfarm is likely to be finding
> > someone who has a working username and password to log into them and
> > take the jobs out of the crontab.
>
> FWIW, in a previous investigation, Semab and Sandeep had access:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CABimMB4mRs9N3eivR-%3DqF9M8oWc5E6OX7GywsWF0DXN4P5gNEA%40mail.g...
Yeah, I'm in touch with Sandeep but not able to get in yet for some
reason. Will try to sort it out.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial
@ 2022-05-31 12:55 Robert Haas <[email protected]>
parent: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Robert Haas @ 2022-05-31 12:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Munro <[email protected]>; +Cc: Tom Lane <[email protected]>; Noah Misch <[email protected]>; Andres Freund <[email protected]>; CM Team <[email protected]>; pgsql-hackers
On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 8:20 AM Robert Haas <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 8:31 PM Thomas Munro <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sat, May 28, 2022 at 1:56 AM Robert Haas <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > What I'm inclined to do is get gharial and anole removed from the
> > > buildfarm. anole was set up by Heikki in 2011. I don't know when
> > > gharial was set up, or by whom. I don't think anyone at EDB cares
> > > about these machines any more, or has any interest in maintaining
> > > them. I think the only reason they're still running is that, just by
> > > good fortune, they haven't fallen over and died yet. The hardest part
> > > of getting them taken out of the buildfarm is likely to be finding
> > > someone who has a working username and password to log into them and
> > > take the jobs out of the crontab.
> >
> > FWIW, in a previous investigation, Semab and Sandeep had access:
> >
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CABimMB4mRs9N3eivR-%3DqF9M8oWc5E6OX7GywsWF0DXN4P5gNEA%40mail.g...
>
> Yeah, I'm in touch with Sandeep but not able to get in yet for some
> reason. Will try to sort it out.
OK, I have access to the box now. I guess I might as well leave the
crontab jobs enabled until the next time this happens, since Thomas
just took steps to improve the logging, but I do think these BF
members are overdue to be killed off, and would like to do that as
soon as it seems like a reasonable step to take.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial
@ 2022-07-04 03:50 Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
parent: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Munro @ 2022-07-04 03:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Haas <[email protected]>; +Cc: Tom Lane <[email protected]>; Noah Misch <[email protected]>; Andres Freund <[email protected]>; CM Team <[email protected]>; pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 12:55 AM Robert Haas <[email protected]> wrote:
> OK, I have access to the box now. I guess I might as well leave the
> crontab jobs enabled until the next time this happens, since Thomas
> just took steps to improve the logging, but I do think these BF
> members are overdue to be killed off, and would like to do that as
> soon as it seems like a reasonable step to take.
A couple of months later, there has been no repeat of that error. I'd
happily forget about that and move on, if you want to decommission
these.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial
@ 2022-07-05 19:56 Robert Haas <[email protected]>
parent: Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Robert Haas @ 2022-07-05 19:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Munro <[email protected]>; +Cc: Tom Lane <[email protected]>; Noah Misch <[email protected]>; Andres Freund <[email protected]>; CM Team <[email protected]>; pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Jul 3, 2022 at 11:51 PM Thomas Munro <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 12:55 AM Robert Haas <[email protected]> wrote:
> > OK, I have access to the box now. I guess I might as well leave the
> > crontab jobs enabled until the next time this happens, since Thomas
> > just took steps to improve the logging, but I do think these BF
> > members are overdue to be killed off, and would like to do that as
> > soon as it seems like a reasonable step to take.
>
> A couple of months later, there has been no repeat of that error. I'd
> happily forget about that and move on, if you want to decommission
> these.
I have commented out the BF stuff in crontab on that machine.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial
@ 2022-07-13 03:30 Sandeep Thakkar <[email protected]>
parent: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Sandeep Thakkar @ 2022-07-13 03:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Haas <[email protected]>; +Cc: Thomas Munro <[email protected]>; Tom Lane <[email protected]>; Noah Misch <[email protected]>; Andres Freund <[email protected]>; CM Team <[email protected]>; pgsql-hackers
Thanks Robert.
We are receiving the alerts from buildfarm-admins for anole and gharial not
reporting. Who can help to stop these? Thanks
On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 1:27 AM Robert Haas <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 3, 2022 at 11:51 PM Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 12:55 AM Robert Haas <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > > OK, I have access to the box now. I guess I might as well leave the
> > > crontab jobs enabled until the next time this happens, since Thomas
> > > just took steps to improve the logging, but I do think these BF
> > > members are overdue to be killed off, and would like to do that as
> > > soon as it seems like a reasonable step to take.
> >
> > A couple of months later, there has been no repeat of that error. I'd
> > happily forget about that and move on, if you want to decommission
> > these.
>
> I have commented out the BF stuff in crontab on that machine.
>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>
>
>
--
Sandeep Thakkar
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial
@ 2022-07-13 08:28 Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]>
parent: Sandeep Thakkar <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Alvaro Herrera @ 2022-07-13 08:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sandeep Thakkar <[email protected]>; +Cc: Andrew Dunstan <[email protected]>; pgsql-hackers; [email protected]; CM Team <[email protected]>
On 2022-Jul-13, Sandeep Thakkar wrote:
> Thanks Robert.
>
> We are receiving the alerts from buildfarm-admins for anole and gharial not
> reporting. Who can help to stop these? Thanks
Probably Andrew knows how to set buildsystems.no_alerts for these
animals.
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"El hombre nunca sabe de lo que es capaz hasta que lo intenta" (C. Dickens)
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-07-13 08:28 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-05-25 00:45 "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
2022-05-25 01:24 ` Andres Freund <[email protected]>
2022-05-25 01:44 ` Tom Lane <[email protected]>
2022-05-25 06:46 ` Noah Misch <[email protected]>
2022-05-25 14:25 ` Tom Lane <[email protected]>
2022-05-26 01:50 ` Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
2022-05-26 02:35 ` Tom Lane <[email protected]>
2022-05-27 11:54 ` Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
2022-05-27 13:56 ` Robert Haas <[email protected]>
2022-05-27 14:21 ` Tom Lane <[email protected]>
2022-05-27 19:44 ` Robert Haas <[email protected]>
2022-05-27 20:11 ` Tom Lane <[email protected]>
2022-05-31 00:08 ` Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
2022-05-31 00:31 ` Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
2022-05-31 12:20 ` Robert Haas <[email protected]>
2022-05-31 12:55 ` Robert Haas <[email protected]>
2022-07-04 03:50 ` Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
2022-07-05 19:56 ` Robert Haas <[email protected]>
2022-07-13 03:30 ` Sandeep Thakkar <[email protected]>
2022-07-13 08:28 ` Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]>
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox