From: | Justin Pitts <jpitts(at)bplglobal(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #5269: postgres backend terminates with SIGSEGV |
Date: | 2010-01-14 19:03:45 |
Message-ID: | F7ACA758-1E26-4413-B6E3-DFC5EA6B370E@bplglobal.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Jan 14, 2010, at 10:44 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Justin Pitts <jpitts(at)bplglobal(dot)net> writes:
>> On Jan 14, 2010, at 10:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> The 100 temp table creations probably will do that just fine.
>
>> Is there a way to verify this?
>
> You could add an elog(LOG, "message") into ResetPlanCache so you could
> tell when it had been called.
>
Done. Sometimes I see it, sometimes not.
>> I don't follow. Are you suggesting I begin another transaction on connection 1 with a read, and that
>> would provoke the crash?
>
> Yes. The rollback only sets the stage for the next transaction to try
> to use a snapshot that isn't there anymore.
>
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Oleg Jurtšenko | 2010-01-14 20:22:53 | Re: BUG #5235: Segmentation fault under high load through JDBC |
Previous Message | Tim Bunce | 2010-01-14 18:41:52 | Re: Termination When Switching between PL/Perl and PL/PerlU |