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

Re: uh-oh, dugong failing again

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>, <math(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)ru>
Subject: Re: uh-oh, dugong failing again
Date: 2007-10-04 14:53:48
Message-ID: 878x6jylqb.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

>> The PGBuildfarm member dugong had the following event on branch HEAD:
>> Status changed from OK to ContribCheck failure
>> The snapshot timestamp for the build that triggered this notification is: 2007-09-25 20:05:01
>
> This seems to be exactly what we saw two weeks ago, and I just noticed
> that in the JIT bgwriter patch, I put an Assert into ForwardFsyncRequest
> in exactly the place where one was removed to make icc happy two weeks
> ago.  This one is less cosmetic and so I'm not as willing to just take
> it out.  I think we need to look closer.  Can we confirm that
> ForwardFsyncRequest somehow becomes a no-op when icc compiles it with an
> Assert right there?

It seems to work with icc on my 32 bit intel cpu. Earlier you speculated that
the struct might be getting padded out which would cause hash failures. But
surely using a different padding from other compilers would be a compiler bug
since it would be an incompatible ABI change. I find it hard to believe
intel's compiler would get the ia64 ABI wrong. And hard to believe nobody's
noticed an incompatible ABI from gcc-generated binaries.

-- 
  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Camilo PortoDate: 2007-10-04 15:00:59
Subject: What does 'elapsed' exact means in PostgreSQL Log Statistics
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2007-10-04 14:50:16
Subject: Re: Connection Pools and DISCARD ALL

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