Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of mié dic 15 02:08:24 -0300 2010: > > On 12/14/2010 12:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Another line of attack is that we know from the response packet that the > > failure is being reported at guc.c:4794. It would be really useful to > > know what the call stack is there. Could you change that elog to an > > elog(PANIC) and get a stack trace from the ensuing core dump? > > > > That didn't work. But git bisect says it's this commit that's to blame: > <https://github.com/postgres/postgres/commit/e710b65c1c56ca7b91f662c63d37ff2e72862a94>
Hmm I wonder if this is reproducible in a non-Windows EXEC_BACKEND scenario. This bug seems closely related to process_postgres_switches. I guess it'd be useful to add some debugging printouts there to figure out what's being passed the second time around. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers