From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Erik Jones <erik(at)myemma(dot)com> |
Cc: | marcelo Cortez <jmdc_marcelo(at)yahoo(dot)com(dot)ar>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: double free corruption? |
Date: | 2007-12-28 16:41:20 |
Message-ID: | 3918.1198860080@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Erik Jones <erik(at)myemma(dot)com> writes:
> Well, if Postgres had killed the proc itself it would have written
> out a nicely formatted Postgres-style memory context report along
> with an ERROR message along the lines of OUT OF MEMORY and the
> request size and Postgres would not have bounced. Since the
> postmaster dropped into recovery mode when the proc received the
> SIGABRT and died, that means that the signal came from somewhere
> else, OOM killer?
No, an abort() is expected when glibc's malloc code detects a problem,
and all that other junk is stuff that malloc helpfully prints on stderr
before committing hara-kiri.
This seems clearly a memory-stomp bug of some kind (although there's
a very small probability that it was a transient RAM glitch). Not much
we can do about it without a test case, though.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gauthier, Dave | 2007-12-28 16:46:14 | default superuser |
Previous Message | marcelo Cortez | 2007-12-28 16:28:43 | Re: double free corruption? |