Re: assertion at postmaster start

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: assertion at postmaster start
Date: 2019-08-26 20:07:59
Message-ID: 17290.1566850079@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> I propose the attached. I'm inclined to think that the risk/benefit
> of back-patching this is not very good, so I just want to stick it in
> HEAD, unless somebody can explain why dead_end children are likely to
> crash in the field.

Pushed at ee3278239.

I'm still curious as to the explanation for a dead_end child exiting
with code 15, but I have no way to pursue the point.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Floris Van Nee 2019-08-26 20:22:35 Re: Optimize single tuple fetch from nbtree index
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2019-08-26 19:40:23 Re: fix "Success" error messages