Re: SIGSEGV in BRIN autosummarize

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 06:54:09PM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> > No crashes in ~28hr. It occurs to me that it's a weaker test due to not
> > preserving most compilation options.
>
> And the previous code crashes in 45 minutes? That's solid enough for
> me; I'll clean up the patch and push in the next few days. I think what
> you have now should be sufficient for the time being for your production
> system.

No - the crash happened 4 times since adding BRIN+autosummarize 6 days ago, and
in once instance occured twice within 3 hours (while I was trying to query logs
for the preceding crash).

[pryzbyj(at)database ~]$ sudo grep -hE 'in postgres|Saved core' /var/log/messages*
Oct 13 17:22:45 database kernel: postmaster[32127] general protection ip:4bd467 sp:7ffd9b349990 error:0 in postgres[400000+692000]
Oct 13 17:22:47 database abrt[32387]: Saved core dump of pid 32127 (/usr/pgsql-10/bin/postgres) to /var/spool/abrt/ccpp-2017-10-13-17:22:47-32127 (15040512 bytes)
Oct 14 18:05:35 database kernel: postmaster[26500] general protection ip:84a177 sp:7ffd9b349b88 error:0 in postgres[400000+692000]
Oct 14 18:05:35 database abrt[27564]: Saved core dump of pid 26500 (/usr/pgsql-10/bin/postgres) to /var/spool/abrt/ccpp-2017-10-14-18:05:35-26500 (24137728 bytes)
Oct 16 23:21:22 database kernel: postmaster[31543] general protection ip:4bd467 sp:7ffe08a94890 error:0 in postgres[400000+692000]
Oct 16 23:21:22 database abrt[570]: Saved core dump of pid 31543 (/usr/pgsql-10/bin/postgres) to /var/spool/abrt/ccpp-2017-10-16-23:21:22-31543 (25133056 bytes)
Oct 17 01:58:36 database kernel: postmaster[8646]: segfault at 8 ip 000000000084a177 sp 00007ffe08a94a88 error 4 in postgres[400000+692000]
Oct 17 01:58:38 database abrt[9192]: Saved core dump of pid 8646 (/usr/pgsql-10/bin/postgres) to /var/spool/abrt/ccpp-2017-10-17-01:58:38-8646 (7692288 bytes)

> > If I understand, our crash isn't explained by the avw_database test
> > anyway (?)
>
> I don't see why you would think that -- I disagree.

No problem - apparently I read too far into Tom's thoughts regarding memory
context.

I'll continue runnning with the existing patch and come back if the issue
recurs.

Thanks
Justin