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
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: