Horton

Re: buildfarm: could not read block 3 in file "base/16384/2662": read only 0 of 8192 bytes

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-09-05T19:46:45Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
I wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>> One concern I have with your approach is that it isn't particularly
>> bullet-proof for cases where the rebuild is triggered by something that
>> doesn't hold a conflicting lock.

> Wouldn't that be a bug in the something-else?

So where are we on this?  Should I proceed with my patch, or are we
going to do further investigation?  Does anyone want to do an actual
patch review?

I think it's important to have some fix in place in time for the next
11beta release, so time grows short ...

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Limit depth of forced recursion for CLOBBER_CACHE_RECURSIVELY.

  2. Fix longstanding recursion hazard in sinval message processing.

  3. Fix bugs in vacuum of shared rels, by keeping their relcache entries current.