From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Fwd: Core dump with nested CREATE TEMP TABLE |
Date: | 2016-01-02 18:46:07 |
Message-ID: | 22733.1451760367@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 11:04:11PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> *************** AtSubAbort_Portals(SubTransactionId mySu
>> --- 909,966 ----
>> {
>> Portal portal = hentry->portal;
>>
>> + /* Was it created in this subtransaction? */
>> if (portal->createSubid != mySubid)
>> + {
>> + /* No, but maybe it was used in this subtransaction? */
>> + if (portal->activeSubid == mySubid)
>> + {
> ...
>> + if (portal->status == PORTAL_ACTIVE)
>> + MarkPortalFailed(portal);
> Do you have a test case that reaches this particular MarkPortalFailed() call?
> My attempts stumbled over the fact that, before we reach here, each of the
> three MarkPortalActive() callers will have already called MarkPortalFailed()
> in its PG_CATCH block. ("make check" does not reach this call.)
Offhand I think that's just belt-and-suspenders-too coding. As you say,
we'd typically have failed active portals already before getting here.
But the responsibility of this routine is to *guarantee* that no broken
portals remain active, so I'd not want to remove this check.
Do you have a particular reason for asking?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-01-02 20:11:42 | Re: Some 9.5beta2 backend processes not terminating properly? |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2016-01-02 18:33:47 | Re: Welcome to 2016, time to run src/tools/copyright.pl |