Re: Snapshot related assert failure on skink
От | Tomas Vondra |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Snapshot related assert failure on skink |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 2297102f-a4be-48ab-98b9-bc22bc3c2ad4@vondra.me обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Snapshot related assert failure on skink (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Snapshot related assert failure on skink
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/17/25 13:18, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 12:59 AM Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me> wrote: >> On 3/17/25 12:36, Tomas Vondra wrote: >>> I'm still fiddling with the script, trying to increase the probability >>> of the (apparent) race condition. On one machine (old Xeon) I can hit it >>> very easily/reliably, while on a different machine (new Ryzen) it's very >>> rare. I don't know if that's due to difference in speed of the CPU, or >>> fewer cores, ... I guess it changes the timing just enough. >>> >>> I've also tried running the stress test on PG17, and I'm yet to see a >>> single failure there. Not even on the xeon machine, that hits it >>> reliably on 18. So this seems to be a PG18-only issue. >>> >> >> And of course, the moment I sent this, I got a failure on 17 too. But >> it's seems much harder to hit (compared to 18). > > Could there be a connection to this commit? > > commit 119c23eb9819213551cbe7e7665c8b493c59ceee > Author: Nathan Bossart <nathan@postgresql.org> > Date: Tue Sep 5 13:59:06 2023 -0700 > > Replace known_assigned_xids_lck with memory barriers. Doesn't seem to be the case. I reverted this (on master), and I still get the assert failures (roughly the same number / loop). regards -- Tomas Vondra
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: