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

Re: [HACKERS] Recent SIGSEGV failures in buildfarm HEAD

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, List pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Recent SIGSEGV failures in buildfarm HEAD
Date: 2007-01-02 21:11:37
Message-ID: 16170.1167772297@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Revised patch attached, doing just this. I will apply it soon unless 
> there are objections.

Probably a good idea to check defined(HAVE_GETRLIMIT) && defined(RLIMIT_CORE),
rather than naively assuming every getrlimit implementation supports
that particular setting.  Also, should the -c option exist but just not
do anything if the platform doesn't support it?  As is, you're making it
impossible to just specify -c without worrying if it does anything.

The documentation fails to list the long form of the switch
(--corefiles, which should probably really be --core-files for consistency).
There's a typo in this message, too:

+ 				_("%s: cannot set core size,: disallowed by hard limit.\n"), 

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2007-01-02 21:16:42
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Recent SIGSEGV failures in buildfarm HEAD
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2007-01-02 20:59:34
Subject: Re: Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2007-01-02 21:16:42
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Recent SIGSEGV failures in buildfarm HEAD
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2007-01-02 20:59:34
Subject: Re: Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and

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