From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: pginfo <pginfo@t1.unisoftbg.com>
Cc: Richard_D_Levine@raytheon.com, Michael Glaesemann <grzm@myrealbox.com>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pg primary key bug?
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:37:30 -0500
Message-ID: <10243.1109090250@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <421AFC7F.406@t1.unisoftbg.com>
References: <OFEF67063C.F61988F3-ON05256F9D.005A91D6@ftw.us.ray.com>
<4214B466.20908@t1.unisoftbg.com>
<8125.1108661189@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<4214C94F.2050806@t1.unisoftbg.com>
<9340.1108664352@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<4214D5C3.4070107@t1.unisoftbg.com>
<9785.1108666900@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<421992FE.3030108@t1.unisoftbg.com>
<3293.1109026294@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<421AC251.7060806@t1.unisoftbg.com>
<7012.1109061770@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<421AFC7F.406@t1.unisoftbg.com>
pginfo <pginfo@t1.unisoftbg.com> writes:
> You idea was that we have "vacuum full" + update or select for update in
> the same time.
> I think it is not the case, because we start vacuum full at 1:00 AM and
> no one is working in this time.
Hmm. AFAICT the duplicate row copies could only be produced by vacuum
full, so that's certainly part of the issue. But if vacuum full in
isolation were broken, we'd surely know it; so there must be some other
contributing factor involved that your setup is exercising but other
people are (mostly) not doing.
I agree with the plan to use plain vacuum for awhile and see if that
makes the problem go away. I think it would have to, but maybe I'm
all wet about that.
In the meantime I would suggest seeing if you can distill your
application down into a test case that other people can run to reproduce
the problem. It doesn't matter if the test doesn't make the bug happen
very often, but we have to see the problem happening before we have much
hope of fixing it.
> Will vacuum full generate this problem if we have locked table in this
> time? (It is possible to have locked table in theory)
No, that's hardly likely. vacuum full deals with locks all the time.
> Can you describe more detailed the idea of problem with "vacuum full" +
> "update" and can some one make patch if this problem exists in theory
> (if I understand you right)?
I have no idea what the actual failure mechanism might be.
regards, tom lane
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-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pginfo@t1.unisoftbg.com, grzm@myrealbox.com
Subject: Re: pg primary key bug?
In-Reply-To: <10243.1109090250@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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