| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sergey Konoplev <gray(dot)ru(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Maxim Boguk <maxim(dot)boguk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Максим Панченко <Panchenko(at)gw(dot)tander(dot)ru>, Соболев Виталий Анатольевич <sobolev_va(at)gw(dot)tander(dot)ru>, Сизов Сергей Павлович <sizov_sp(at)gw(dot)tander(dot)ru>, Мельковский Владимир Ярославович <Melkovskiy(at)gw(dot)tander(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: [BUG] Segmentation fault in pfree in PLy_output_tuple_funcs |
| Date: | 2013-12-10 22:36:47 |
| Message-ID: | 11347.1386715007@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Sergey Konoplev <gray(dot)ru(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> What's the likelihood that table "cars" was being modified concurrently?
> It is rather high. Probably even very high.
This doesn't smell like that's an issue though ...
Just eyeballing the code, I don't see how set-returning plpython functions
work at all. Ever. It looks like they allocate a bunch of stuff in the
SPI procedure context and expect it to still be there on the next call.
Why isn't this code falling over in any assert-enabled build?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | mg | 2013-12-11 09:34:27 | BUG #8674: Professional services in Poland |
| Previous Message | Sergey Konoplev | 2013-12-10 21:19:35 | Re: [BUG] Segmentation fault in pfree in PLy_output_tuple_funcs |