From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Frank van Vugt <ftm(dot)van(dot)vugt(at)foxi(dot)nl> |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: "invalid memory alloc request size <n>" in deferred trigger causes transaction to fail, but the backend keeps running |
Date: | 2004-12-03 15:17:40 |
Message-ID: | 21410.1102087060@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Frank van Vugt <ftm(dot)van(dot)vugt(at)foxi(dot)nl> writes:
> Meanwhile, one of the application developers here bumped into a way to
> reproduce what looks like the same memory alloc problem (exactly the same
> point in exactly the same trigger) using our application software
> only,
Oh good. Can you construct a self-contained test case then?
> Here are both the query-set and the corresponding backtrace.
The query set's not very interesting without a database to try it
against :-(
> I then got a firm set of results, all of which were looking like this:
> Hardware access (read/write) watchpoint 1: SerializableSnapshotData.xcnt
> Value = 1
> Hardware access (read/write) watchpoint 2: LatestSnapshotData.xcnt
> Value = 1
> All were located at sinval.c:888
This is the expected case. The failure in CopySnapshot has got to
indicate that somebody set one or the other field to some bizarrely
large value, though. I take it you didn't run the watchpointed backend
far enough to get the memory-alloc error?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Frank van Vugt | 2004-12-03 15:26:08 | Re: "invalid memory alloc request size <n>" in deferred trigger causes transaction to fail, but the backend keeps running |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2004-12-03 09:17:31 | Re: Installation fails for postgresql-8.0.0-beta4 on Windo |