| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Zhang Mingli <zmlpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Steve Baldwin <steve(dot)baldwin(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Adding some error context for lock wait failures |
| Date: | 2025-10-09 17:33:44 |
| Message-ID: | 3083139.1760031224@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2025-10-09 12:50:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Concretely, like the attached. This passes check-world, but
>> I can't test it under valgrind because I'm hitting the same
>> CREATE DATABASE failure skink is reporting.
> Sorry, was working on a fix when life rudely intervened. Here's a quick
> temporary fix:
Thanks. With that, I've confirmed that this change suppresses the
leak report in your example, and it also gets through the core
regression tests under valgrind (though I didn't run leak checking
for that). That's enough to convince me that the fix is OK.
Do you have an opinion on whether to back-patch? I'm leaning
in the direction of doing so, but it could be argued that it's
too much risk for a problem that we only know for sure exists
in master.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2025-10-09 17:34:28 | Re: VACUUM (PARALLEL) option processing not using DefElem the way it was intended |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2025-10-09 17:07:22 | Re: Invalid pointer access in logical decoding after error |