On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 4:59 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 4:47 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > After a bit more copy-editing on docs and comments and a round of > > automated indenting, I have now pushed this. I will now watch the > > build farm. I tested on quite a few OSes that I have access to, but > > this is obviously a very OS-sensitive kind of a thing. > > Hmm. I see a strange "invalid page" failure on Andrew's machine crake > in 004_io_direct.pl. Let's see what else comes in.
No particular ideas about what happened there yet. It *looks* like we wrote out a page, and then read it back in very soon afterwards, all via the usual locked bufmgr/smgr pathways, and it failed basic page validation. The reader was a parallel worker, because of the debug_parallel_mode setting on that box. The page number looks reasonable (I guess it's reading a page created by the UPDATE full of new tuples, but I don't know which process wrote it). It's also not immediately obvious how this could be connected to the 32 pinned buffer problem (all that would have happened in the CREATE TABLE process which ended already before the UPDATE and then the SELECT backends even started). Andrew, what file system and type of disk is that machine using?
