Re: Assert failure found in 8.1RC1

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Creager <Robert(dot)Creager(at)Sun(dot)com>, PGHackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Assert failure found in 8.1RC1
Date: 2005-11-04 21:25:22
Message-ID: 20051104212522.GA9989@pervasive.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:45:21PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Creager <Robert(dot)Creager(at)Sun(dot)com> writes:
> > Ran with both for an hour with no problem, where I could produce the ASSERT
> > failure within minutes for the non patched version.
>
> Great. I'll go ahead and commit the smaller fix into HEAD and the back
> branches, and hold the larger fix for 8.2.
>
> It's curious that two different people stumbled across this just
> recently, when the bug has been there since 7.2. I suppose that the
> addition of pg_subtrans increased the probability of seeing the bug by
> a considerable amount, but I'm still surprised it wasn't identified
> before. At the very least, we should have heard about it earlier in
> the 8.0 release cycle ...

Well, the common theme in each case IIRC is a fairly high transaction
rate; on the order of hundreds if not thousands per second.

Could something like that be added to regression, or maybe as a seperate
test case for the buildfarm?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-11-04 21:30:27 Re: Reducing the overhead of NUMERIC data
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2005-11-04 21:18:18 Re: Reducing the overhead of NUMERIC data