| 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: | 2020-07-09 00:35:49 |
| Message-ID: | 1772079.1594254949@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:
>> 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.
> Ouch. So 12 builds with -O0 but 13 does not?
Unless Tom's changed the animal's config since that thread, yes.
> Did we do something to
> sequence.c to work around this problem? I cannot find anything.
We did not. If it's a compiler bug, and one as phase-of-the-moon-
dependent as this seems to be, I'd have zero confidence that any
specific source code change would fix it (barring someone confidently
explaining exactly what the compiler bug is, anyway). The best we
can do for now is hope that backing off the -O level avoids the bug.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com | 2020-07-09 00:49:21 | RE: Postgres is not able to handle more than 4k tables!? |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-07-08 23:35:26 | Re: min_safe_lsn column in pg_replication_slots view |