Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20220525012439.pkrfb7zh276jdmyq@alap3.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial
Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On 2022-05-25 12:45:21 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: > A couple of recent isolation test failures reported $SUBJECT. Was that just on gharial? > It could be a bug in recent-ish latch refactoring work, though I don't > know why it would show up twice just recently. Yea, that's weird. > Just BTW, that animal has shown signs of a flaky toolchain before[1]. > I know we have quite a lot of museum exhibits in the 'farm, in terms > of hardare, OS, and tool chain. In some cases, they're probably just > forgotten/not on anyone's upgrade radar. If they've shown signs of > misbehaving, maybe it's time to figure out if they can be upgraded? > For example, it'd be nice to be able to rule out problems in GCC 4.6.0 > (that's like running PostgreSQL 9.1.0, in terms of vintage, > unsupported status, and long list of missing bugfixes from the time > when it was supported). Yea. gcc 4.6.0 is pretty ridiculous - the only thing we gain by testing with a .0 compiler of that vintage is pain. Could it be upgraded? TBH, I think we should just desupport HPUX. It's makework to support it at this point. 11.31 v3 is about to be old enough to drink in quite a few countries... Greetings, Andres Freund
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: