Re: intermittent failures in Cygwin from select_parallel tests
От | Thomas Munro |
---|---|
Тема | Re: intermittent failures in Cygwin from select_parallel tests |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+hUKG+jE-foqqKXp+2E9hKFf9DTqeanH23=dX8Zj9Gq62u+8g@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: intermittent failures in Cygwin from select_parallel tests
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 5:21 PM Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 10:45:50AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > 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. > > Thanks. http://marc.info/?t=150183296400001 has my upstream report. The > Cygwin project lead reproduced this, but a fix remained elusive. > > I guess we'll ignore weird postmaster-associated lorikeet failures for the > foreseeable future. While reading a list of recent build farm assertion failures I learned that this is still broken in Cygwin 3.2, and eventually found my way back to this thread. I was wondering about suggesting some kind of official warning, but I guess the manual already covers it with this 10 year old notice. I don't know much about Windows or Cygwin so I'm not sure if it needs updating or not, but I would guess that there are no longer any such systems? <productname>Cygwin</productname> is not recommended for running a production server, and it should only be used for running on older versions of <productname>Windows</productname> where the native build does not work.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: