From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Buildfarm failures for hash indexes: buffer leaks |
Date: | 2018-10-23 14:50:57 |
Message-ID: | 20181023145057.xmvkzpsxwqcu2573@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-10-23 13:54:31 +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Hello Tom & Amit,
>
> > > > Both animals use gcc experimental versions, which may rather underline a
> > > > new bug in gcc head rather than an existing issue in pg. Or not.
> >
> > > It is possible, but what could be the possible theory?
> >
> > It seems like the two feasible theories are (1) gcc bug, or (2) buffer
> > leak that only occurs in very narrow circumstances, perhaps from a race
> > condition. Given that the hash index code hasn't changed meaningfully
> > in several months, I thought (1) seemed more probable.
>
> Yep, that is my thought as well.
FWIW, my animal 'serinus', which runs debian's gcc-snapshot shows the same problem:
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=serinus&dt=2018-10-22%2006%3A34%3A02
So it seems much more likely to be 1).
> The problem is that this kind of issue is not simple to wrap-up as a gcc bug
> report, unlike other earlier instances that I forwarded to clang & gcc dev
> teams.
>
> I'm in favor in waiting before trying to report it, to check whether the
> probable underlying gcc problem is detected, reported by someone else, and
> fixed in gcc head. If it persists, then we'll see.
I suspect the easiest thing to narrow it down would be to bisect the
problem in gcc :(
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexey Bashtanov | 2018-10-23 16:39:19 | Re: Pull up sublink of type 'NOT NOT (expr)' |
Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2018-10-23 13:44:30 | Re: BUG #15448: server process (PID 22656) was terminated by exception 0xC0000005 |