sorry, the message was sent out to early.
and AFAIR other sessions I had opened at that time were indeed disconnected.
--
regards,
pozdrawiam,
Jakub Glapa
So, the issue occurs only on production db an right now I cannot reproduce it.
I had a look at dmesg and indeed I see something like:
postgres[30667]: segfault at 0 ip 0000557834264b16 sp 00007ffc2ce1e030 error 4 in postgres[557833db7000+6d5000]
When it comes to the execution plan for max_parallel_workers=0.
There is no real difference.
I guess max_parallel_workers has no effect and max_parallel_workers_per_gather should have been used.
Why it caused a server crash is unknown right now.
I cannot really give a reproducible recipe.
My case is that I have a parent table with ~300 partitions.
And I initiate a select on ~100 of them with select [...] from fa where client_id(<IDS>) and [filters].
I know this is not effective. Every partition has several indexes and this query acquires a lot of locks... even for relations not used in the query.
PG11 should have better partition pruning mechanism but I'm not there yet to upgrade.
Some of the partitions have millions of rows.
I'll keep observing maybe I'l find a pattern when this occurs.
--
regards,
pozdrawiam,
Jakub Glapa
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 4:26 PM Jakub Glapa <jakub.glapa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So, the issue occurs only on production db an right now I cannot reproduce it.I had a look at dmesg and indeed I see something like:
--
regards,
Jakub GlapaOn Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 5:10 PM Justin Pryzby <pryzby@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 03:31:41PM +0100, Jakub Glapa wrote:
> Hi Justin, I've upgrade to 10.6 but the error still shows up:
>
> If I set it to max_parallel_workers=0 I also get and my connection is being
> closed (but the server is alive):
>
> psql db@host as user => set max_parallel_workers=0;
Can you show the plan (explain without analyze) for the nonparallel case?
Also, it looks like the server crashed in that case (even if it restarted
itself quickly). Can you confirm ?
For example: dmesg |tail might show "postmaster[8582]: segfault [...]" or
similar. And other clients would've been disconnected. (For example, you'd
get an error in another, previously-connected session the next time you run:
SELECT 1).
In any case, could you try to find a minimal way to reproduce the problem ? I
mean, is the dataset and query small and something you can publish, or can you
reproduce with data generated from (for example) generate_series() ?
Thanks,
Justin
