Re: gcc 4.6 and hot standby

From: Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: gcc 4.6 and hot standby
Date: 2011-06-08 18:58:17
Message-ID: BANLkTik55wN_urFw=RU9EbQU1-ZApxGD3Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:49, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> So I've been delaying moving some production boxes over to 9.0.4 from
>> 2011-06-08 11:41:03 MDT [6078]: [1-1] user= FATAL:  terminating
>> walreceiver process due to administrator command
>> [ repeats... ]
>
>> I suppose the next step is to narrow it down to a specific flag -O2
>> uses... But I thought I would post here first-- maybe someone else has
>> hit this? Or maybe someone has a bright idea on how to narrow this
>> down?
>
> Maybe using a "prerelease" gcc version isn't such a hot idea for
> production.  It's very, very, very difficult to see how the behavior you
> describe isn't a compiler bug.

Yeah :-). However ill note it looks like its the default compiler for
fedora 15, ubuntu natty and debian sid.

> It might be useful to strace the postmaster and walreceiver processes
> just to see if any signal is actually being sent or received.

Will do.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-06-08 19:05:09 Re: gcc 4.6 and hot standby
Previous Message Alex Hunsaker 2011-06-08 18:52:50 Re: gcc 4.6 and hot standby