On 3 Feb 2012, at 06:45, Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> I probably ought to let the test case run overnight before concluding
> anything, but at this point it's run for two-plus hours with no errors
> after applying this patch:
> 
> diff --git a/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c b/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c

Thank Tom! I've had this running for a few hours now without problems. Previously, on Sparc, the problem would occur in less than a minute.

I did try a build with --enable-cassert and it didn't actually cause the problem. I think I left it for about an hour. Although a a relatively modern machine, this Sparc box I am using is painfully slow. My guess is that the extra time taken to perform the Assert code is hiding the problem.

Now it's time to persuade the customer to use a patched version of pg ;)

Cheers,
Duncan

P.S. I've been looking for an OS project to contribute to, and I think I'll see if I can help with pg. Time to look a the TODO list :)

In response to

• Re: BUG #6425: Bus error in slot_deform_tuple at 2012-02-03 06:45:13 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: BUG #6425: Bus error in slot_deform_tuple at 2012-02-03 16:11:37 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Robert Haas	Date: 2012-02-03 15:28:05
	Subject: Re: Should I implement DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY?
Previous:	From: Robert Haas	Date: 2012-02-03 14:35:11
	Subject: Re: [v9.2] sepgsql's DROP Permission checks

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2012-02-03 16:11:37
	Subject: Re: BUG #6425: Bus error in slot_deform_tuple
Previous:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2012-02-03 14:59:07
	Subject: Re: BUG #6347: Reopening bug #6085