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
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 |