On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> But we know, from the subsequent failed assertion, that the leader was
>>> still trying to launch parallel workers.  So that particular theory
>>> doesn't hold water.
>
>> Is there any chance that it's already trying to launch parallel
>> workers for the *next* query?
>
> Oh!  Yeah, you might be right, because the trace includes a statement
> LOG entry from the leader in between:
>
> 2017-06-13 16:44:57.179 EDT [59404ec6.2758:63] LOG:  statement: EXPLAIN 
> (analyze, timing off, summary off, costs off) SELECT * FROM tenk1;
> 2017-06-13 16:44:57.247 EDT [59404ec9.2e78:1] ERROR:  could not map dynamic 
> shared memory segment
> 2017-06-13 16:44:57.248 EDT [59404dec.2d9c:5] LOG:  worker process: parallel 
> worker for PID 10072 (PID 11896) exited with exit code 1
> 2017-06-13 16:44:57.273 EDT [59404ec6.2758:64] LOG:  statement: select 
> stringu1::int2 from tenk1 where unique1 = 1;
> TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(BackgroundWorkerData->parallel_register_count - 
> BackgroundWorkerData->parallel_terminate_count <= 1024)", File: 
> "/home/andrew/bf64/root/HEAD/pgsql.build/../pgsql/src/backend/postmaster/bgworker.c",
>  Line: 974)
> 2017-06-13 16:45:02.652 EDT [59404dec.2d9c:6] LOG:  server process (PID 
> 10072) was terminated by signal 6: Aborted
>
> It's fairly hard to read this other than as telling us that the worker was
> launched for the EXPLAIN (although really? why aren't we skipping that if
> EXEC_FLAG_EXPLAIN_ONLY?), ...

Uh, because ANALYZE was used?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to