From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: thread safety on clients |
Date: | 2009-12-11 04:22:23 |
Message-ID: | 9269.1260505343@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> The "-j" option is the recent addition to pgbench that causes it to
> launch multiple client threads when enabled, each handling a subset of
> the transactions. There's blocks of codes in pgbench.c now that depend
> on having sane values for thread safety in libpq. That it may be
> detecting the wrong thing and operating in an unsafe way after the
> recent change is what Peter's suggesting. This is good, actually,
> because I don't think we had many client-side thread-safety tests
> floating around to catch problems in this area before.
The report showed an assert inside the backend. It really doesn't
matter *how* broken pgbench might be, it should not be able to cause
that. My bet is that the real problem was a build inconsistency in
the backend. Does "make distclean" and rebuild make it go away?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-12-11 04:23:45 | Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460) |
Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2009-12-11 03:48:45 | Re: SE-PostgreSQL/Lite Review |