From: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
Cc: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Unresolved Win32 bug reports |
Date: | 2006-04-20 18:06:30 |
Message-ID: | 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCEA0F91F@algol.sollentuna.se |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > > pgbench) just stops doing work (CPU usage drops to
> nothing, as does
> > > disk activity). I've been able to repro this on 2 Intel
> boxes (one a
> > > 2 way, one a 4 way), and a dual Opteron, all running the
> latest windows binary.
> > > A 50 connection test running 1000 transactions is pretty much
> > > ensured to fail.
> >
> > Well, this sounds like a dead-lock, the obvious step would be to
> > attached gdb to both and get a stack-trace...
>
> Any pointers on how to get that setup? IS gdb part of the
> mingw runtime?
Yes. It's quite crappy compared to on unix though - I've never been able
to make it do the right thing all the way :-(
> BTW, this appears to be readily reproducable, so it might be
> a lot more productive for one of the windows hackers to test
> this themselves...
It reuqires a multi-CPU box, right? I don't hav eone with pgwin32 on
ATM. Do you know if it's enough with hyperthreading?
//Magnus
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-20 18:14:02 | Re: TODO item pg_hba.conf |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-04-20 18:01:35 | Re: Google SoC--Idea Request |