From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert E Bruccoleri <bruc(at)stone(dot)congenomics(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #1208: Invalid page header |
Date: | 2004-08-16 16:20:55 |
Message-ID: | 200408161620.i7GGKtN22880@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > If you are sure your storage and memory are good, I can think of only
> > two other ideas. One is a gcc bug. You are running Itanium so it is
> > possible. The only other possibility I can think of is that that our
> > ia64 assembler code is wrong. It is:
>
> But that code is gcc-only, and he's not using gcc.
Oh, I see that now:
Compiler used (example: gcc 2.95.2) : Intel C compiler version 8.0
> It's certainly possible that the non-gcc spinlock path is broken on IA64
> though. I dunno that anyone has ever tested that combination. It might
> be interesting for him to run the "test" program in s_lock.c and see if
> it complains.
What locking code is actually being used. I don't see any __ia64__
entries except for gcc. Is it calling some libc library tas()? It is
falling back to semaphores?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-08-16 16:21:32 | Re: [BUGS] 8.0: Absolute path required for INITDB? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-08-16 16:13:05 | Re: BUG #1208: Invalid page header |