Re: Partitioning option for COPY

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org>
Cc: Emmanuel Cecchet <manu(at)asterdata(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Partitioning option for COPY
Date: 2009-11-17 01:58:23
Message-ID: 17544.1258423103@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

=?UTF-8?B?SmFuIFVyYmHFhHNraQ==?= <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org> writes:
> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
> 0x0819368b in route_tuple_to_child (parent_relation=0xb5d93040,
> tuple=0x873b08c, hi_options=0, parentResultRelInfo=0x871e204) at copy.c:1821
> 1821 child_relation_id =
> child_oid_cell->oid_value;
> (gdb) p child_oid_cell
> $1 = (OidCell *) 0x7f7f7f7f

This looks like the patch is trying to create a data structure in a
memory context that's not sufficiently long-lived for the use of the
structure. If you do this in a non-cassert build, it will seem to
work, some of the time, if the memory in question happens to not
get reallocated to something else.

A good rule of thumb is to never do code development in a non-cassert
build. You're just setting yourself up for failure.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2009-11-17 02:06:06 Re: next CommitFest
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2009-11-17 01:47:50 Re: next CommitFest