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

Re: Unresolved error 0xC0000409 on Windows Server

From: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
To: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Matthew Gerber <gerber(dot)matthew(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Unresolved error 0xC0000409 on Windows Server
Date: 2012-11-03 01:00:07
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 02:05:47PM -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Matthew Gerber <gerber(dot)matthew(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > I am encountering an error on my Postgres installation for Windows Server
> > 64-bit. The error was posted here a couple months ago; however, no solution
> > was found on the pgsql-bugs list, so I am reposting it to pgsql-hackers in
> > the hopes that someone will be able to help. My error message is identical
> > to the one previously posted:
> >
> > 2012-11-01 22:36:26 EDT LOG:  00000: server process (PID 7060) was
> > terminated by exception 0xC0000409
> > 2012-11-01 22:36:26 EDT DETAIL:  Failed process was running: INSERT INTO
> > [snipped SQL command]

Could you post an anonymized query, post an anonymized query plan, and/or
describe the general nature of the query?  Does it call functions?  About how
many rows does it insert?

What server settings have you customized?

If you could get a stack trace or minidump, that would be most helpful:

Magnus's questions for the reporter of bug #7517 are relevant, too.  Does the
system have any antivirus software installed?

> > 2012-11-01 22:36:26 EDT LOG:  00000: all server processes terminated;
> > reinitializing
> > 2012-11-01 22:36:26 EDT LOCATION:  PostmasterStateMachine,
> > src\backend\postmaster\postmaster.c:3135
> > 2012-11-01 22:36:36 EDT FATAL:  XX000: pre-existing shared memory block is
> > still in use
> > 2012-11-01 22:36:36 EDT HINT:  Check if there are any old server processes
> > still running, and terminate them.
> > 2012-11-01 22:36:36 EDT LOCATION:  PGSharedMemoryCreate,
> > src\backend\port\win32_shmem.c:194

This part smells like a bug in its own right.

> hm, several times over the last couple of months (both on postgres 9.1
> and 9.2), i've seen  a similar crash, but on linux.  It hits the log
> like this:
> Execution halted  (~ 200x)
> Error: segfault from C stack overflow
> Execution halted  (~ 30x)
> LOG:  server process (PID 19882) was terminated by signal 11: Segmentation fault
> LOG:  terminating any other active server processes

> note the lack of LOG in 'Execution halted', etc.  This has happened
> several times, on different servers using different workloads (but
> always under load).  As of yet, I've been unable to get a core but I
> hope to get one next time it happens.  I wonder if it's a similar
> cause?

Google suggests those unadorned messages originate in R.  Do the affected
systems use PL/R?  If so ...

> One thing I've been tempted to try is raising max_stack_depth to see
> if that helps the problem.

... that probably won't help.  Depending on the specifics of the situation,
*lowering* max_stack_depth might tend to give you an ERROR instead of a crash.
Or it might just give R a bit more stack space to devour before reaching the
same crash it would otherwise reach.


In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Daniel FarinaDate: 2012-11-03 01:26:49
Subject: Re: Synchronous commit not... synchronous?
Previous:From: Noah MischDate: 2012-11-03 00:23:56
Subject: Re: Incorrect behaviour when using a GiST index on points

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group