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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

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

Browse pgsql-patches by date

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