From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Rémi Zara <remi_zara(at)mac(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pika failing since the per-column collation patch |
Date: | 2011-02-18 07:26:25 |
Message-ID: | 12004.1298013985@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
=?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9mi_Zara?= <remi_zara(at)mac(dot)com> writes:
> Le 12 fvr. 2011 18:51, Peter Eisentraut a crit :
>> It's only failing on this one machine, but there isn't anything
>> platform-specific in this code, so I'd look for memory management faults
>> on the code or a compiler problem. Try with lower optimization for a
>> start.
> Same failure with -O0 (and more shared memory).
Note that the query that is failing is an intentional probe of
robustness:
-- check that we can apply functions taking ANYARRAY to pg_stats ...
-- such functions must protect themselves if varying element type isn't OK
select max(histogram_bounds) from pg_stats;
ERROR: cannot compare arrays of different element types
pika is instead showing
ERROR: locale operation to be invoked, but no collation was derived
which some trawling through the code says is coming from varstr_cmp
when fn_collation didn't get set on the call.
Hypothesis: the platform-dependency here is just one of row ordering,
to wit, on most platforms the scan of pg_statistic fails before it gets
to the case where the collation issue is triggered. I'm suspicious that
if two text arrays get compared via this code path, fn_collation fails
to get set, and it's not a platform-specific omission.
It'd be helpful if you could identify the specific values that are
getting compared at the moment of the failure.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-02-18 07:27:54 | Re: Fix for Index Advisor related hooks |
Previous Message | Gan Jiadong | 2011-02-18 06:57:02 | Re: About the performance of startup after dropping many tables |