Re: min_safe_lsn column in pg_replication_slots view

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgbf(at)twiska(dot)com, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: min_safe_lsn column in pg_replication_slots view
Date: 2020-07-08 23:24:50
Message-ID: 1738875.1594250690@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2020-Jul-08, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The buildfarm's sparc64 members seem unhappy with this.

> Hmm. Some of them are, yeah, but it's not universal. For example
> mussurana and ibisbill are not showing failures.

Ah, right, I was thinking they hadn't run since this commit, but they
have.

> Anyway the error is pretty strange: only GetWALAvailability is showing a
> problem, but the size calculation in the view function def is returning
> a negative number, as expected.

We've previously noted what seem to be compiler optimization bugs on
both sparc32 and sparc64; the latest thread about that is
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/f28f842d-e82b-4e30-a81a-2a1f9fa4a8e1%40www.fastmail.com

This is looking uncomfortably like the same thing. Tom, could you
experiment with different -O levels on those animals?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2020-07-08 23:29:57 Re: Is this a bug in pg_current_logfile() on Windows?
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2020-07-08 23:12:40 Re: Is this a bug in pg_current_logfile() on Windows?