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 1fv7Hj-0000h4-SR for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 20:41:52 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fv7Hi-0000mB-Fk for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 20:41:50 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fv7Hi-0000m4-8n for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 20:41:50 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fv7Hf-0001Kf-O3 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 20:41:49 +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 w7TKfgMC032198; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 16:41:42 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Andres Freund cc: Tomas Vondra , Peter Geoghegan , PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: buildfarm: could not read block 3 in file "base/16384/2662": read only 0 of 8192 bytes In-reply-to: <20180829201648.cqxw6ft547csnhrc@alap3.anarazel.de> References: <2e674bd6-3bc2-9d70-7d03-db48f7ea5877@2ndquadrant.com> <20180811140823.gyxqbtjbr5uitgsf@alap3.anarazel.de> <20180828075213.yqyl3w2gpd5heopd@alap3.anarazel.de> <20180829025658.brk3hfdczo3f73al@alap3.anarazel.de> <6970.1535512705@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20180829032714.6yu3bxdywcvyj2li@alap3.anarazel.de> <20180829032908.o46wdjmti6c6dfep@alap3.anarazel.de> <20180829083730.n645apqhb2gyih3g@alap3.anarazel.de> <24986.1535565612@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20180829201648.cqxw6ft547csnhrc@alap3.anarazel.de> Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund message dated "Wed, 29 Aug 2018 13:16:48 -0700" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <32196.1535575302.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 16:41:42 -0400 Message-ID: <32197.1535575302@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Andres Freund writes: > On 2018-08-29 14:00:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> 2. I think we may need to address the same order-of-operations hazards >> as RelationCacheInvalidate() worries about. Alternatively, maybe we >> could simplify that function by making it use the same >> delayed-revalidation logic as we're going to develop for this. > Hm, just to make sure I understand correctly: You're thinking about > having to rebuild various nailed entries in a specific order [2]? > [2] Hm, I'm right now a bit confused as to why "Other nailed relations > go to the front of rebuildList" is a good idea. I'm not recalling the reason right now either, but I'm pretty sure that logic was added out of necessity ... it hasn't always been like that. regards, tom lane