Re: Why is create function bringing down the Backend server?

Marko Kreen wrote:

>On 12/22/05, Carlos Moreno <moreno_pg@mochima.com> wrote:
>
>>The problem is, when I execute the SQL statement:
>>
>>create or replace function sha1 ....  ;
>>
>>for the second time (i.e., after making modifications and
>>recompiling), the *backend* crashes -- it then restarts
>>automatically, and then I run again the create or replace
>>statement, and it works now  (and the function seems to
>>work fine -- well, in its "final" version it does).
>>
>
>You should see if there's something in server log.
>

The only thing that does show does not seem to say much:

LOG:  server process (PID 12885) was terminated by signal 11
LOG:  terminating any other active server processes
LOG:  all server processes terminated; reinitializing

Not sure what the meaning of signal 11 is with PG (AFAIR, it's
one of the SIGUSER values, right?)

>
>And then indeed, try to gdb it.  You can run Postgres in non-daemon
>mode with command 'postgres -D datadir database'.
>
>The stripped pgcrypto.c you posted - your wrapper function looks fine,
>only problem I see is that you deleted function find_provider that is used
>by pg_digest, so there will be undefined function in final .so.
>

Oh no!!  That was only in the function I posted, so that the file
is kept as short as possible -- in the one that I compiled, I left
everything untouched, and only added my functions.

>
>But that should not crash the server, so gdb trace could be still useful.
>
>
Ok, will try to do it and post any interesting discoveries  (I
can't find any core files, so I guess I'll have to try gdbing it)

>>Anyway, I wanted to add hash functions (SHA-1 is already there,
>>so I'd like to add SHA-256 and SHA-512 at the very least, and
>>maybe also, for completeness, SHA-224 and SHA-384).
>>
>
>For SHA2 hashes it should be enough to compile pgcrypto
>against OpenSSL 0.9.8.  Or upgrade to PostgreSQL 8.1,
>where they are included.
>
>Ofcourse, that is no fun.
>

Hahahaha -- why do I keep being naive and making the same mistake
over and over!!!  :-)

As much as it is indeed no fun, it is also good to know  (and I
didn't know that OpenSSL 0.9.8 had them either, so thanks for
the double pointer!)

>
>If you want to hack, you could try adding SHA224 to the SHA2
>implementation in 8.1.
>

Sounds like a plan  :-)

Thanks,

Carlos
--