On 24 December 2012 16:07, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Huh. Looks a bit like overflow of the refcount, which would explain why > it takes such a long test case to reproduce it. But how could that be > happening without somebody forgetting to decrement the refcount, which > ought to lead to a visible failure in shorter tests? Even more > interesting that the buffer's global refcount is zero.
But we test at the end of each transaction whether any pin count is non-zero, so it can't have slowly built up. It would be easier for it to have decremented too many times within just one transaction. Something to do with tail recursion during VACUUM? -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
