Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, CM Team <cm(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Subject: Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial
Date: 2022-05-25 01:24:39
Message-ID: 20220525012439.pkrfb7zh276jdmyq@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2022-05-25 12:45:21 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> A couple of recent isolation test failures reported $SUBJECT.

Was that just on gharial?

> It could be a bug in recent-ish latch refactoring work, though I don't
> know why it would show up twice just recently.

Yea, that's weird.

> Just BTW, that animal has shown signs of a flaky toolchain before[1].
> I know we have quite a lot of museum exhibits in the 'farm, in terms
> of hardare, OS, and tool chain. In some cases, they're probably just
> forgotten/not on anyone's upgrade radar. If they've shown signs of
> misbehaving, maybe it's time to figure out if they can be upgraded?
> For example, it'd be nice to be able to rule out problems in GCC 4.6.0
> (that's like running PostgreSQL 9.1.0, in terms of vintage,
> unsupported status, and long list of missing bugfixes from the time
> when it was supported).

Yea. gcc 4.6.0 is pretty ridiculous - the only thing we gain by testing with a
.0 compiler of that vintage is pain. Could it be upgraded?

TBH, I think we should just desupport HPUX. It's makework to support it at
this point. 11.31 v3 is about to be old enough to drink in quite a few
countries...

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Japin Li 2022-05-25 01:30:55 Re: Shmem queue is not flushed if receiver is not yet attached
Previous Message Tom Lane 2022-05-25 01:23:07 Re: PG15 beta1 sort performance regression due to Generation context change