Re: [JDBC] SEGFAULT in HEAD with replication

From: Jorge Solórzano <jorsol(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com>, Vladimir Gordiychuk <folyga(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, List <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [JDBC] SEGFAULT in HEAD with replication
Date: 2017-01-20 13:53:05
Message-ID: CA+cVU8PJs-W1vp-LumirHiYM1dA_OUwnkkDqRmqF6DJF3bLnCA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc

Thanks tom, I confirm that ba61a04
<https://github.com/postgres/postgres/commit/ba61a04bc7fefeee03416d9911eb825c4897c223>
fixes
the issue. Now CI is passing.

Jorge Solórzano
me.jorsol.com

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> I wrote:
> > Hmm ... that line was last touched by ab1f0c822, so I'm betting that
> > I broke it somehow, but I'm not sure how.
> > It looks like S_3 might have been parsed from a totally empty source
> > string? But if that's the trigger, I'd think it'd be entirely trivial
> > to reproduce.
>
> Oh, duh: the reason it's not trivial to reproduce is you have to try
> to bind an empty prepared statement *in an already-aborted transaction*.
>
> Will push a fix in a bit.
>
> regards, tom lane
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-01-20 14:02:10 Re: Improvements in psql hooks for variables
Previous Message Daniel Verite 2017-01-20 13:44:12 Re: Improvements in psql hooks for variables

Browse pgsql-jdbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Al Presseller 2017-01-24 22:27:20 "Cached plan must not change result type" error when switching search_path via explicit execution of SET SEARCH_PATH = ...
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-01-20 00:09:45 Re: [JDBC] SEGFAULT in HEAD with replication