| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: thread safety on clients |
| Date: | 2009-12-11 19:56:33 |
| Message-ID: | 22633.1260561393@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> It sounds like random pgbench run for a while would certainly expose the
> same thing you're concerned about eventually.
Yeah. Actually the odd thing about it is that the crash seemed to
invariably be on conflicting pgbench_accounts updates, which is a fairly
low-contention table in this test design (but the bug turned it into
high-contention). What I would have expected is crashes on the very
similar updates to pgbench_branches, which is designed to be
high-contention. It might be that there is some other effect going on
here that explains why that wasn't happening. Need to go back and look
more closely.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2009-12-11 20:00:50 | Re: [PATCH] dtrace probes for memory manager |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2009-12-11 19:48:24 | Re: thread safety on clients |