On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 10:45:50AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 11:47 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > > postmaster algorithms rely on the PG_SETMASK() calls preventing that. > > Without > > such protection, duplicate bgworkers are an understandable result. I caught > > several other assertions; the PMChildFlags failure is another case of > > duplicate postmaster children: > > > > 6 TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(entry->trans == ((void *)0))", File: > > "pgstat.c", Line: 871) > > 3 TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(PMSignalState->PMChildFlags[slot] == 1)", > > File: "pmsignal.c", Line: 229) > > 20 TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(RefCountErrors == 0)", File: "bufmgr.c", > > Line: 2523) > > 21 TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(vmq->mq_sender == ((void *)0))", File: > > "shm_mq.c", Line: 221) > > Also, got a few "select() failed in postmaster: Bad address" > > > > I suspect a Cygwin signals bug. I'll try to distill a self-contained test > > case for the Cygwin hackers. The lack of failures on buildfarm member > > brolga > > argues that older Cygwin is not affected. > > Nice detective work.
Thanks. http://marc.info/?t=150183296400001 has my upstream report. The Cygwin project lead reproduced this, but a fix remained elusive. I guess we'll ignore weird postmaster-associated lorikeet failures for the foreseeable future. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers