Re: SIGSEGV from START_REPLICATION 0/XXXXXXX in XLogSendPhysical () at walsender.c:2762

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SIGSEGV from START_REPLICATION 0/XXXXXXX in XLogSendPhysical () at walsender.c:2762
Date: 2020-05-28 07:22:33
Message-ID: 20200528072233.GF3460@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 09:07:04AM +0300, Vladimir Sitnikov wrote:
> The CI history shows that HEAD was good at 11 May 13:27 UTC, and it became
> bad by 19 May 14:00 UTC,
> so the regression was introduced somewhere in-between.
>
> Does that ring any bells?

It does, thanks! This would map with 1d374302 or 850196b6 that
reworked this area of the code, so it seems like we are not quite done
with this work yet. Do you still see the problem as of 55ca50d
(today's latest HEAD)?

Also, just wondering.. If I use more or less the same commands as
your travis job I should be able to reproduce the problem with a fresh
JDBC repository, right? Or do you a sub-portion of your regression
tests to run that easily?
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dilip Kumar 2020-05-28 07:27:29 Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions
Previous Message Dilip Kumar 2020-05-28 07:16:08 Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions