Re: Alpha4 release blockers (was Re: wrapping up this CommitFest)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Alpha4 release blockers (was Re: wrapping up this CommitFest)
Date: 2011-03-02 15:28:00
Message-ID: 17186.1299079680@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

=?UTF-8?B?SmFuIFVyYmHFhHNraQ==?= <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org> writes:
> On 02/03/11 14:25, Robert Haas wrote:
>> But does bumping the ref count then create a leak the rest of the time?

> Not really, because you never want to garbage collect the spiexceptions
> module (just like you don't want to GC th plpy module, or the plpy.info
> function etc.). So the reference count of that module should never drop
> to zero, but apparently on some machines it does. So just reffing
> artificailly is kind of a valid solution, I'm just uneasy with not
> knowing why it fails on some machines and does not on others.

Yeah, that last point makes me nervous too. A look into the Fedora
repository shows that the python version shipped in F13 is rather
heavily patched:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=python.git;a=tree;h=refs/heads/f13/master;hb=refs/heads/f13/master
It's not clear to me which of their changes from a stock build might
be at issue, though, and even less clear whether they introduced a
bug or did something to expose a bug of ours.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Aidan Van Dyk 2011-03-02 15:37:25 Re: Sync Rep v17
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2011-03-02 15:23:00 Re: Sync Rep v17