Re: [HACKERS] Possibly too stringent Assert() in b-tree code

2016-09-25 Thread Amit Kapila
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

Re: [HACKERS] Possibly too stringent Assert() in b-tree code

2016-09-25 Thread Amit Kapila
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

Re: [HACKERS] Possibly too stringent Assert() in b-tree code

2016-09-25 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] Possibly too stringent Assert() in b-tree code

2016-09-24 Thread Amit Kapila
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

Re: [HACKERS] Possibly too stringent Assert() in b-tree code

2016-09-22 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] Possibly too stringent Assert() in b-tree code

2016-09-19 Thread Robert Haas
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

Re: [HACKERS] Possibly too stringent Assert() in b-tree code

2016-09-19 Thread Amit Kapila
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

[HACKERS] Possibly too stringent Assert() in b-tree code

2016-09-19 Thread Antonin Houska
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