On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Amit Kapila writes:
>>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 12:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
This is clearly an oversight in Simon's patch fafa374f2, which introduced
this code without any considera
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Kapila writes:
>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 12:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> This is clearly an oversight in Simon's patch fafa374f2, which introduced
>>> this code without any consideration for the possibility that the page
>>> doesn't have a v
Amit Kapila writes:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 12:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This is clearly an oversight in Simon's patch fafa374f2, which introduced
>> this code without any consideration for the possibility that the page
>> doesn't have a valid special area. ...
>> but I'm not very clear on whet
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 12:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 7:07 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> I think you have a valid point. It seems we don't need to write WAL
>>> for reuse page (aka don't call _bt_log_reuse_page()), if the page is
>>> new, as the only pu
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 7:07 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> I think you have a valid point. It seems we don't need to write WAL
>> for reuse page (aka don't call _bt_log_reuse_page()), if the page is
>> new, as the only purpose of that log is to handle conflict based on
>> trans
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 7:07 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> Of course, the database could have been corrupted after having encountered
>> many crashes during my experiments. Neverthelesss, even without in-depth
>> knowledge of the b-tree code I suspect that this stack trace might reflect a
>> legal sit
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Antonin Houska wrote:
> I've recently seen this when using 9.6:
>
> #0 0x7f147892f0c7 in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6
> #1 0x7f1478930478 in abort () from /lib64/libc.so.6
> #2 0x009683a1 in ExceptionalCondition (conditionName=0x9f2ef8
> "!(((
I've recently seen this when using 9.6:
#0 0x7f147892f0c7 in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#1 0x7f1478930478 in abort () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#2 0x009683a1 in ExceptionalCondition (conditionName=0x9f2ef8
"!(((PageHeader) (page))->pd_special >= (__builtin_offsetof (PageHeaderD