| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Core dump with nested CREATE TEMP TABLE |
| Date: | 2015-09-05 07:07:40 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqRfxQBZeE+iuc1GYE4pfjBNHVQX8ynZfPX9ZZgM3OJggQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> wrote:
> I was about to test this and was verifying that the crash still worked
> when I noticed this in the logs (9.4.1, not HEAD). Not sure if there's any
> realion here or not...
>
> WARNING: relation "pg_proc" page 121 is uninitialized --- fixing
> WARNING: relation "pg_proc" page 122 is uninitialized --- fixing
>
[reading vacuumlazy.c...] This seems unrelated and I would not worry about
it. Those system catalogs have been extended with new pages by a couple of
backends, but a crash happened before they could actually insert tuples on
it and commit. Perhaps you were creating a bunch of objects when a crash
happened, no?
Coming to the point, did you see a new crash with test_factory? Is that
some remnant of a previous test?
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Oskari Saarenmaa | 2015-09-05 07:16:07 | misc typofixes |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2015-09-05 06:56:46 | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing |