Re: Failed assert ((data - start) == data_size) in heaptuple.c

From: Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alex Ferrara <alex(at)receptiveit(dot)com(dot)au>
Subject: Re: Failed assert ((data - start) == data_size) in heaptuple.c
Date: 2011-04-07 11:36:02
Message-ID: 4D9DA1A2.2080501@postnewspapers.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

On 04/07/2011 03:07 PM, Brendan Jurd wrote:
> On 7 April 2011 16:56, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Brendan Jurd<direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((data - start) == data_size)", File:
>>> "heaptuple.c", Line: 255)
>>
>> [ scratches head ... ] That implies that heap_fill_tuple came to a
>> different conclusion about a tuple's data size than the immediately
>> preceding heap_compute_data_size. Which I would sure want to believe
>> is impossible. Have you checked for flaky memory on this machine?
>>
>
> We are doing so now -- although the RAM is ECC and just a few months
> old, so flakiness seems a distant possibility. I will report back
> after we've given it a proper thrashing with memtest.

Apparently bad RAM can also mean faulty CPU (bad cache, heat problems,
etc). memtest86 seems ... rough ... at best when it comes to finding
issues; I've had some systems run it for a day yet continuously segfault
in real-world use until the RAM was re-seated or swapped out.

--
Craig Ringer

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message hubert depesz lubaczewski 2011-04-07 13:08:22 Re: BUG #5967: Db maintainace
Previous Message Savita 2011-04-07 07:38:49 BUG #5967: Db maintainace

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2011-04-07 12:01:16 Re: superusers are members of all roles?
Previous Message Christian Ullrich 2011-04-07 11:33:48 Re: superusers are members of all roles?