Re: [HACKERS] Re: [sqlsmith] FailedAssertion("!(k == indices_count)", File: "tsvector_op.c", Line: 511)
Robert Haas writes: > Action within 72 hours now seems inadequate; we are scheduled to wrap > rc1 on Monday. We need someone to either fix these bugs very very > soon, or decide to ship beta4 instead of rc1 (uggh), or decide it's OK > to ship rc1 with these known defects, or postpone the planned release. Given the time of year, I'd not be surprised if Oleg and Teodor are on vacation. In view of the time pressure, I'll take a whack at fixing this. I think that Thomas Munro's suggestion is good as far as fixing the Assert failure is concerned. I do not know where the other problems are, but maybe I can find them ... regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [sqlsmith] FailedAssertion("!(k == indices_count)", File: "tsvector_op.c", Line: 511)
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 12:14 AM, Noah Misch wrote: > On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 05:52:44PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I wrote: >> > I'm thinking there are two distinct bugs here. >> >> Actually, make that three bugs. I was so focused on the crashing >> that I failed to notice that ts_delete wasn't producing sane answers >> even when it didn't crash: > > [Action required within 72 hours. This is a generic notification.] > > The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 9.6 open item. Teodor, > since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open > item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a > 9.6 open item, please let us know. Otherwise, please observe the policy on > open item ownership[1] and send a status update within 72 hours of this > message. Include a date for your subsequent status update. Testers may > discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed > in advance of shipping 9.6rc1 next week. Consequently, I will appreciate your > efforts toward speedy resolution. Thanks. Action within 72 hours now seems inadequate; we are scheduled to wrap rc1 on Monday. We need someone to either fix these bugs very very soon, or decide to ship beta4 instead of rc1 (uggh), or decide it's OK to ship rc1 with these known defects, or postpone the planned release. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[HACKERS] Re: [sqlsmith] FailedAssertion("!(k == indices_count)", File: "tsvector_op.c", Line: 511)
On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 05:52:44PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > I'm thinking there are two distinct bugs here. > > Actually, make that three bugs. I was so focused on the crashing > that I failed to notice that ts_delete wasn't producing sane answers > even when it didn't crash: [Action required within 72 hours. This is a generic notification.] The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 9.6 open item. Teodor, since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a 9.6 open item, please let us know. Otherwise, please observe the policy on open item ownership[1] and send a status update within 72 hours of this message. Include a date for your subsequent status update. Testers may discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed in advance of shipping 9.6rc1 next week. Consequently, I will appreciate your efforts toward speedy resolution. Thanks. [1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160527025039.ga447...@tornado.leadboat.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
