Re: OOM in spgist insert
От | Alvaro Herrera |
---|---|
Тема | Re: OOM in spgist insert |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20210513155351.GA7848@alvherre.pgsql обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: OOM in spgist insert (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: OOM in spgist insert
Re: OOM in spgist insert Re: OOM in spgist insert |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021-May-13, Tom Lane wrote: > BTW, another nasty thing I discovered while testing this is that > the CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() at line 2146 is useless, because > we're holding a buffer lock there so InterruptHoldoffCount > 0. > So once you get into this loop you can't even cancel the query. > Seems like that needs a fix, too. This comment made me remember a patch I've had for a while, which splits the CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() definition in two -- one of them is INTERRUPTS_PENDING_CONDITION() which let us test the condition separately; that allows the lock we hold to be released prior to actually processing the interrupts. The btree code modified was found to be an actual problem in production when a btree is corrupted in such a way that vacuum would get an infinite loop. I don't remember the exact details but I think we saw vacuum running for a couple of weeks, and had to restart the server in order to terminate it (since it wouldn't respond to signals). -- Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile "I am amazed at [the pgsql-sql] mailing list for the wonderful support, and lack of hesitasion in answering a lost soul's question, I just wished the rest of the mailing list could be like this." (Fotis) (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-sql/2006-06/msg00265.php)
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: