From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Cc: | Aleksandr Parfenov <a(dot)parfenov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL crashes with SIGSEGV |
Date: | 2018-01-17 20:31:22 |
Message-ID: | 4977.1516221082@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I don't feel particularly comfortable committing a patch that
>> was clearly labeled as a rushed draft by its author.
>> Peter, where do you stand on this work?
> I would like to take another pass over
> WIP-tuplesort-memcontext-fix.patch, to be on the safe side. I'm
> currently up to my neck in parallel CREATE INDEX work, though, and
> would prefer to avoid context switching for a week or two, if
> possible. How time sensitive do you think this is?
Probably not very. It'd be nice to have it done by the next minor
releases, ie before 5-Feb ... but given that these bugs are years
old, missing that deadline would not be catastrophic.
> I'm not sure whether or not we should also apply this
> still-to-be-written 9.5 patch to 9.4 and 9.3, since those versions
> don't have grouping sets, and so cannot crash. ISTM that we should
> leave them alone, since tuplesort has had this problem forever.
+1. If the problem isn't known to be reproducible in those branches,
the risk of adding new bugs seems to outweigh any benefit.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-01-17 20:41:13 | Re: PostgreSQL crashes with SIGSEGV |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-01-17 20:19:50 | Re: PostgreSQL crashes with SIGSEGV |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-01-17 20:37:34 | Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6 |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-01-17 20:29:11 | Re: [HACKERS][PATCH] Applying PMDK to WAL operations for persistent memory |