From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Holger Hoffstaette <holger(at)wizards(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: libxml incompatibility |
Date: | 2009-03-07 04:11:10 |
Message-ID: | 49B1F3DE.7060003@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>> Holger Hoffstaette wrote:
>>
>>
>>> http://www.nabble.com/New-libxml-which-is-reentrant---to18329452.html
>>>
>>> Seems to me that Perl (?) is calling functions it is not supposed to call
>>> - I'm guessing due to assumptions about mismatching lifecycles. The
>>> parsing functions themselves are supposedly reentrant.
>>>
>> Maybe someone can trace the libxml calls ... not sure how exactly ...
>> given Alvaro's example, it doesn't seem likely to me that this is due to
>> a call to xmlCleanupParser(), but maybe the perl code invokes by simply
>> doing "use XML::LibXML;" calls that for some perverse reason.
>>
>
> Something that came to my mind was that maybe the change of memory
> management (to make it use palloc) could be confusing libxml somehow.
>
>
Seems very possible. But what would perl be doing just as a result of
loading the module, not even doing anything, that would cause a segfault
because of that?
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | ohp | 2009-03-07 07:40:53 | Re: small parallel restore optimization |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-03-07 03:55:17 | Re: libxml incompatibility |