Re: BUG #5269: postgres backend terminates with SIGSEGV
От | Justin Pitts |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #5269: postgres backend terminates with SIGSEGV |
Дата | |
Msg-id | F7ACA758-1E26-4413-B6E3-DFC5EA6B370E@bplglobal.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #5269: postgres backend terminates with SIGSEGV (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Jan 14, 2010, at 10:44 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Justin Pitts <jpitts@bplglobal.net> writes: >> On Jan 14, 2010, at 10:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> The 100 temp table creations probably will do that just fine. >=20 >> Is there a way to verify this? >=20 > You could add an elog(LOG, "message") into ResetPlanCache so you could > tell when it had been called. >=20 Done. Sometimes I see it, sometimes not. >> I don't follow. Are you suggesting I begin another transaction on connec= tion 1 with a read, and that >> would provoke the crash? >=20 > Yes. The rollback only sets the stage for the next transaction to try > to use a snapshot that isn't there anymore. >=20 Oh, duh. A read from the same session that rolled-back. That didn't get it = working (failing?) however. Running concurrent instances of this test reliably provokes the crash on un= -patched 8.4.2. They do not provoke a crash with the patch. That's what i was looking for. Thanks! > regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: