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

Re: Server process exited with status 139 (meaning?)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
Cc: Ed Loehr <eloehr(at)austin(dot)rr(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pghackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Server process exited with status 139 (meaning?)
Date: 2000-06-26 06:51:23
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
> I see the latest being formally rejected down in the Executor. So
> something is better than in the beta, but the plan being generated is
> not quite right apparently.

No sign of a problem here (using current sources).  Exactly which of
Ed's versions did you see a problem with, and what did you see exactly?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Zeugswetter Andreas SBDate: 2000-06-26 07:57:43
Subject: AW: Big 7.1 open items
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-06-26 06:43:27
Subject: Re: ExecInitIndexScan: both left and right ops are rel-vars

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group