From: | Leif Jensen <leif(at)crysberg(dot)dk> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Server process crash - Segmentation fault |
Date: | 2014-05-07 17:16:56 |
Message-ID: | 4548428.10806.1399483016605.JavaMail.root@quick |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-general |
Could it be related to the OFFSET part of the statement ? I have another query on the same table without OFFSET, which seems to work fine.
Leif
----- Original Message -----
> Leif Jensen <leif(at)crysberg(dot)dk> writes:
> > Here is a gdb dump of the backtrace at the server process crash.
> > I have also included the code that generates these calls. As
> > mentioned below this specific connection has been used many times
> > before the crash. Also, we are aware of the thread caveat that
> > only using a connection from one thread at a time. Therefore the
> > "strange" connection name that includes both the process id and
> > the thread id. This is for the code to make sure that a
> > connection is only used in the thread it is meant to.
>
> Hm. The crash looks like it must be because ActiveSnapshot is null
> (not set). Since we're doing a FETCH, the active snapshot ought to
> be the one saved for the cursor query by DECLARE CURSOR. It looks
> like the problem is that pquery.c only bothers to install that as the
> active snapshot while calling ExecutorRun, but in this stack trace
> we're in ExecutorRewind.
>
> I wonder if it's a bad idea for ExecReScanLimit to be executing
> user-defined expressions? But it's been like that for awhile,
> and I think we might have a hard time preserving the bounded-sort
> optimization if we didn't do that.
>
> Anyway the simple fix would be to ensure we install the query
> snapshot as active before calling ExecutorRewind.
>
> One interesting question is why this issue hasn't been seen before;
> it seems like it'd not be that hard to hit.
>
> regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-05-07 17:39:43 | Re: Server process crash - Segmentation fault |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-05-07 16:52:10 | Re: BUG #10255: CREATE COLLATION bug on 9.4 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2014-05-07 17:26:17 | Re: Building Postgres using mingw |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-05-07 16:51:42 | Re: How to fix lost synchronization with server |