Re: Buildfarm failure and dubious coding in predicate.c

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Buildfarm failure and dubious coding in predicate.c
Date: 2017-07-24 19:24:01
Message-ID: 1376.1500924241@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Ahh, I think I see it. This is an EXEC_BACKEND build farm animal.
> Theory: After the backend we see had removed the scratch entry and
> before it had restored it, another backend started up and ran
> InitPredicateLocks(), which inserted a new scratch entry without
> interlocking.

Ouch. Yes, I think you're probably right. It needs to skip that if
IsUnderPostmaster. Seems like there ought to be an Assert(!found)
there, too. And I don't think I entirely like the fact that there's
no assertions about the found/not found cases below, either.

Will fix, unless you're already on it?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2017-07-24 19:27:29 Re: Buildfarm failure and dubious coding in predicate.c
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-07-24 19:18:36 Re: Issue with circular references in VIEW