Re: Server crash (FailedAssertion) due to catcache refcount mis-handling

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jeevan Chalke <jeevan(dot)chalke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Server crash (FailedAssertion) due to catcache refcount mis-handling
Date: 2017-08-10 17:57:21
Message-ID: CA+TgmoajwTLHwqobeJM4zYH82uTSo+NXpW8iex3etrz5=8f-Mg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:48 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> In the meantime, I think my vote would be to remove AtEOXact_CatCache.
>
>> In all supported branches?
>
> Whatever we do about this issue, I don't feel a need to do it further
> back than HEAD. It's a non-problem except in an assert-enabled build,
> and we don't recommend running those for production, only development.

Sure, but people still do testing and development against older
branches - bug fixes, for example. It doesn't make much sense to me
to leave code that we know does the wrong thing in the back branches.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2017-08-10 17:59:29 Re: Default Partition for Range
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-08-10 17:54:20 Re: dubious error message from partition.c