Re: Possible issue with expanded object infrastructure on Postgres 9.6.1

From: Justin Workman <justin(at)photolynx(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Possible issue with expanded object infrastructure on Postgres 9.6.1
Date: 2017-08-09 03:29:04
Message-ID: CAOxz3frWEp3FgbccdVtzhvV5GvaLk6C2zJRzQs63Rd4Qkun1EQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> >> A customer is on 9.6.1, and complains of a segfault observed at least
> >> 3 times.
> > ...
> > For the sake of the archives: this now looks very much like the issue
> > that Tom just fixed with commit
> > 9bf4068cc321a4d44ac54089ab651a49d89bb567.
>
> Yeah, particularly seeing that $customer noted that some of the
> columns involved were UUIDs:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOxz3fqK9Y0GntL8MDoeZ
> jy2Ot_6Lx1YvHAY6Bd1vYkUp-iS_A(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com
>
> Good to have gotten to the bottom of that one. Too bad it just
> missed the train for 9.6.4.
>
> regards, tom lane
>

$customer, here. I just want to thank everyone involved for getting to the
bottom of this and for your support. Even if it missed the 9.6.4 release,
I'm very grateful for your help. We haven't had much of an issue since
disabling parallel workers so nothing is harmed by waiting a little longer.

Thanks,
Justin

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-08-09 03:34:13 Re: dubious error message from partition.c
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-08-09 03:17:04 Re: Possible issue with expanded object infrastructure on Postgres 9.6.1