On 2/4/20 6:20 AM, Doug Roberts wrote:
So how did containers_reset_recirc() come to clash with
containers_add_update()?
They are clashing because another portion of our system is running and
updating containers. The reset recirc function was run at the same time
to see how our system and the database would handle it.
So does your system have the things Tom mentioned below?:
"The known bugs in that area
require either before-row-update triggers on the table, or
child tables (either partitioning or traditional inheritance).
So I wonder what the schema of table "containers" looks like."
The recirc string is formatted like 2000=3,1000=6,5000=0. So the reset
recirc function with take a UID (1000 for example) and use that to
remove 1000=x from all of the recirc counts for all of the containers
that have 1000=x.
We are currently using PG 12.0.
Thanks,
Doug
On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 6:21 PM Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx>> writes:
> Please reply to list also.
> On 2/3/20 2:18 PM, Doug Roberts wrote:
>> Here is what the reset recirc function is doing.
>> ...
>> UPDATE containers
>> ...
> So how did containers_reset_recirc() come to clash with
> containers_add_update()?
If this is PG 12.0 or 12.1, a likely theory is that this is an
EvalPlanQual bug (which'd be triggered during concurrent updates
of the same row in the table, so that squares with the observation
that locking the table prevents it). The known bugs in that area
require either before-row-update triggers on the table, or
child tables (either partitioning or traditional inheritance).
So I wonder what the schema of table "containers" looks like.
Or you could have hit some new bug ... but there's not enough
info here to diagnose.
regards, tom lane
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx
