Re: Why is parula failing?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Tharakan, Robins" <tharar(at)amazon(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Why is parula failing?
Date: 2024-03-29 20:17:16
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> I'd not looked closely enough at the previous failure, because
> now that I have, this is well out in WTFF territory: how can
> reltuples be greater than zero when relpages is zero? This can't
> be a state that autovacuum would have left behind, unless it's
> really seriously broken. I think we need to be looking for
> explanations like "memory stomp" or "compiler bug".

... in connection with which, I can't help noticing that parula
is using a very old compiler:

configure: using compiler=gcc (GCC) 7.3.1 20180712 (Red Hat 7.3.1-17)

From some quick checking around, that would have to be near the
beginning of aarch64 support in RHEL (Fedora hadn't promoted aarch64
to a primary architecture until earlier that same year). It's not
exactly hard to believe that there were some lingering compiler bugs.
I wonder why parula is using that when its underlying system seems
markedly newer (the kernel at least has a recent build date).

regards, tom lane

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mitar 2024-03-29 20:34:27 Allowing DESC for a PRIMARY KEY column
Previous Message Nathan Bossart 2024-03-29 20:08:28 Re: Popcount optimization using AVX512