| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Grigory Smolkin <g(dot)smolkin(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Pg Bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: amcheck assert failure |
| Date: | 2019-04-20 01:30:14 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzncLb59xy4=2gkQnUxHnenCqW1hCTGTX1FwbeH2S5SesQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 6:15 PM Grigory Smolkin
<g(dot)smolkin(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> Hello, everyone!
> I was running some automated tests with amcheck on PG11 and encountered
> following assertion failure:
>
> TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((( (&(itup)->t_tid)->ip_posid ) & 0xF000) ==
> 0)", File: "nbtutils.c", Line: 2168)
Was the assertion failure on Postgres Pro's fork? I understand that
there are differences in this exact area on the forked version,
because it has to deal with two representations -- the fork had
INCLUDE indexes before the community version, which explicitly
represents the number of attributes in pivot tuples.
I wouldn't usually ask this, but the failure is very basic. It's hard
to believe that it would take this long to notice it.
I also note that you have "fsync = off". I suppose that that might be
relevant, too.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Grigory Smolkin | 2019-04-20 09:08:39 | Re: amcheck assert failure |
| Previous Message | Grigory Smolkin | 2019-04-20 01:15:27 | amcheck assert failure |