Re: postmaster segfaults with HUGE table

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: postmaster segfaults with HUGE table
Date: 2004-11-16 04:00:59
Message-ID: 1100577659.23420.68.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 21:08 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Are we going to try to test whether the behavior is appropriate when
> running out of memory to store the tlist?

We absolutely should: segfaulting on OOM is not acceptable behavior.
Testing that we recover safely when palloc() elogs (or _any_ routine
elogs) would be a good idea. I'd guess model checking would help here.

-Neil

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Neil Conway 2004-11-16 04:12:45 Re: GiST: PickSplit and multi-attr indexes
Previous Message Robert Treat 2004-11-16 03:15:27 Re: Database reverse engineering