Re: Elusive segfault with 9.3.5 & query cancel

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Elusive segfault with 9.3.5 & query cancel
Date: 2014-12-05 23:23:37
Message-ID: 27459.1417821817@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> wrote:
>> Perhaps we should also officially recommend production servers be setup to
>> create core files. AFAIK the only downside is the time it would take to
>> write a core that's huge because of shared buffers

> I don't think that's every going to be practical.

I'm fairly sure that on some distros (Red Hat, at least) there is distro
policy against having daemons produce core dumps by default, for multiple
reasons including possible disk space consumption and leakage of secure
information. So even if we recommended this, the recommendation would be
overridden by some/many packagers.

There is much to be said though for trying to emit at least a minimal
stack trace into the postmaster log file. I'm pretty sure glibc has a
function for that; dunno if it's going to be practical on other platforms.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2014-12-05 23:49:08 Re: Elusive segfault with 9.3.5 & query cancel
Previous Message Richard Frith-Macdonald 2014-12-05 23:02:55 Re: Elusive segfault with 9.3.5 & query cancel