Re: [HACKERS] intermittent failures in Cygwin from select_parallel tests
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] intermittent failures in Cygwin from select_parallel tests |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoZV3pDkhLEUmo+1ubTWVKv=61maHTtWf0u4J+PGcQGMjw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] intermittent failures in Cygwin from select_parallel tests (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] intermittent failures in Cygwin from select_parallel tests
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 11:47 PM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote: > postmaster algorithms rely on the PG_SETMASK() calls preventing that. Without > such protection, duplicate bgworkers are an understandable result. I caught > several other assertions; the PMChildFlags failure is another case of > duplicate postmaster children: > > 6 TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(entry->trans == ((void *)0))", File: "pgstat.c", Line: 871) > 3 TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(PMSignalState->PMChildFlags[slot] == 1)", File: "pmsignal.c", Line: 229) > 20 TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(RefCountErrors == 0)", File: "bufmgr.c", Line: 2523) > 21 TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(vmq->mq_sender == ((void *)0))", File: "shm_mq.c", Line: 221) > Also, got a few "select() failed in postmaster: Bad address" > > I suspect a Cygwin signals bug. I'll try to distill a self-contained test > case for the Cygwin hackers. The lack of failures on buildfarm member brolga > argues that older Cygwin is not affected. Nice detective work. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: