> On Apr 8, 2017, at 7:35 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Mark Dilger <hornschnor...@gmail.com> writes: >> This is very near where the original crash reported in this thread was >> crashing, probably only >> different due to the extra lines of Assert that were added. Am I missing >> some portion of the >> fix that you are testing? I have only applied the patch that Tom included >> in the previous email. > > No, that was the whole patch --- but did you do a full "make clean" and > rebuild? The patch changed NodeTag numbers which would affect the whole > tree.
I had trouble applying your patch using mark$ patch -p 1 < patch patching file src/backend/nodes/bitmapset.c Hunk #1 FAILED at 115. Hunk #2 FAILED at 146. Hunk #3 FAILED at 190. Hunk #4 FAILED at 205. Hunk #5 FAILED at 229. Hunk #6 FAILED at 265. Hunk #7 FAILED at 298. Hunk #8 FAILED at 324. Hunk #9 FAILED at 364. Hunk #10 FAILED at 444. Hunk #11 FAILED at 463. Hunk #12 FAILED at 488. Hunk #13 FAILED at 517. Hunk #14 FAILED at 554. Hunk #15 FAILED at 598. Hunk #16 FAILED at 635. Hunk #17 FAILED at 665. Hunk #18 FAILED at 694. Hunk #19 FAILED at 732. Hunk #20 FAILED at 770. Hunk #21 FAILED at 789. Hunk #22 FAILED at 825. Hunk #23 FAILED at 853. Hunk #24 FAILED at 878. Hunk #25 FAILED at 927. Hunk #26 FAILED at 981. Hunk #27 FAILED at 1027. 27 out of 27 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/backend/nodes/bitmapset.c.rej patching file src/include/nodes/bitmapset.h Hunk #1 FAILED at 20. Hunk #2 FAILED at 38. 2 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/include/nodes/bitmapset.h.rej patching file src/include/nodes/nodes.h Hunk #1 FAILED at 291. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/include/nodes/nodes.h.rej So I did the patching manually against my copy of the current master, aba696d1af9a267eee85d69845c3cdeccf788525, and then ran: make distclean; ./configure --enable-cassert --enable-tap-tests --enable-depend && make -j4 && make check-world I am attaching my patch, which I admit on closer inspection differs from yours, but not in any way I can tell is relevant:
patch.mark.1
Description: Binary data
I'm going to pull completely fresh sources and reapply and retest, though you are welcome to review my patch while I do that. mark
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
