Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: BUG #6065: FATAL: lock 0 not held

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Ben" <bwtest24(at)yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #6065: FATAL: lock 0 not held
Date: 2011-06-17 14:28:06
Message-ID: 16155.1308320886@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
"Ben" <bwtest24(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> Operating system:   Linux version 2.6.21-uc0 on ARM processor
> (NXP-LPC2478)
> Description:        FATAL: lock 0 not held
> Details: 

> while initialising with initdb, after creating and filling new WAL file.
> We see LWLockAcquire(11) followed by LWLockRelease(0) and then a FATAL: 
> lock 0 is not held.

Compiler bug?  It's pretty hard to credit that you've found some new
code path through bootstrap where the wrong lock number gets frobbed.

We do have at least one buildfarm member running on ARM, so that
architecture does get tested regularly, which eliminates various
other theories about PG portability problems.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-06-17 15:41:21
Subject: Re: Ident authentication fails due to bind error on server (8.4.8)
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2011-06-17 14:21:48
Subject: Re: BUG #6066: [PATCH] Mark more strings as c-format

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group