From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: crash with assertions and WAL_DEBUG |
Date: | 2014-06-14 21:26:31 |
Message-ID: | 20140614212631.GX18688@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-06-14 16:57:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > > I noticed that HEAD crashes at startup with assertions disabled and
> > > WAL_DEBUG turned on:
> >
> > I'm beginning to think we're going to have to give up on that
> > no-pallocs-in-critical-sections Assert. It was useful to catch
> > unnecessarily-dangerous allocations in mainline cases, but getting rid
> > of every last corner-case palloc is looking to be, if not impossible,
> > at least a lot more trouble than it is worth.
>
> I think we at least need to remove it from 9.4. We shouldn't release
> with an assertion that still regularly triggers in more or less
> 'harmless' situations.
Yeah, removing it in 9.4 is likely a good idea -- we have an open item
about it in connection with LWLOCK_DEBUG, and now this. Who knows what
other debugging features will cause trouble.
> I think it might be worthwile to keep it in master to help maintain the
> rule against allocations in critical sections. And perhaps as a reminder
> that e.g. the checkpointer is doing bad things...
I also agree with keeping it in 9.5.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2014-06-14 23:56:44 | delta relations in AFTER triggers |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-06-14 21:13:32 | Re: crash with assertions and WAL_DEBUG |