Amit Kapila writes:
> All the affected members (gharial, chipmunk, anole) are happy. It
> feels good to see chipmunk becoming green after so many days.
Yup. I've marked this item fixed on the open-items list.
regards, tom lane
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 10:02 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > Now chipmunk also failed for the same test.
> >
> > > What I find more interesting is
> > > that both of the live Sparc critters are happy --- so despite
> > > Thomas' statements upthread, they're coping with unaligned accesses.
> > >
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 8:29 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 12:25 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Amit Kapila writes:
> > >> Okay, I have pushed the test case patch on HEAD. Attached is the
> > >> code-fix patch, let's wait for a day so that we have all the results
> > >> which can
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 12:25 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila writes:
> >> Okay, I have pushed the test case patch on HEAD. Attached is the
> >> code-fix patch, let's wait for a day so that we have all the results
> >> which can help us to discuss the merits of this patch.
>
> > By now, the
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 7:55 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Kapila writes:
> >> Okay, I have pushed the test case patch on HEAD. Attached is the
> >> code-fix patch, let's wait for a day so that we have all the results
> >> which can help us to discuss the merits of this patch.
>
> > By now, the
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 11:21 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 10:07 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Amit Kapila writes:
> > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:38 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> (But it might be worth choosing slightly less
> > >> generic object names, to avoid a conflict against
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 10:07 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila writes:
> > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:38 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> (But it might be worth choosing slightly less
> >> generic object names, to avoid a conflict against other sub-tests
> >> later in that script.)
>
> > The function
Amit Kapila writes:
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:38 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> (But it might be worth choosing slightly less
>> generic object names, to avoid a conflict against other sub-tests
>> later in that script.)
> The function name and statement name seems okay to me. How about
> changing the
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:38 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila writes:
> > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:22 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> (I think we could drop the savepoint
> >> too, no?)
>
> > One advantage of keeping the savepoint is that we don't need to
> > explicitly drop the objects which we have
Amit Kapila writes:
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:22 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> (I think we could drop the savepoint
>> too, no?)
> One advantage of keeping the savepoint is that we don't need to
> explicitly drop the objects which we have created temporarily for this
> test.
They'll go away anyway at
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:22 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila writes:
> > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 7:08 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Also, I believe
> >> that coding the test this way makes the leader send the param values to
> >> multiple workers, which would flush out any problems with serializing
Amit Kapila writes:
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 7:08 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Also, I believe
>> that coding the test this way makes the leader send the param values to
>> multiple workers, which would flush out any problems with serializing a
>> value multiple times. As against that, there's a
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 7:08 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila writes:
> > I think if we do Analyze on the table after populating rows, it should
> > use just one worker and that should be sufficient to hit the case
> > being discussed. I would like to change the test so that it uses just
> >
Amit Kapila writes:
> I think if we do Analyze on the table after populating rows, it should
> use just one worker and that should be sufficient to hit the case
> being discussed. I would like to change the test so that it uses just
> one worker.
I thought that adding an ANALYZE would make the
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 5:31 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Thomas Munro writes:
> > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:49 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Apparently the only somewhat-modern architecture that is resolutely
> >> unaligned-unfriendly is MIPS.
>
> > It's been a few years now since I worked on that
Thomas Munro writes:
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:49 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Apparently the only somewhat-modern architecture that is resolutely
>> unaligned-unfriendly is MIPS.
> It's been a few years now since I worked on that architecture, but
> Sparc is somewhat-modern and resolutely
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:49 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Apparently the only somewhat-modern architecture that is resolutely
> unaligned-unfriendly is MIPS.
It's been a few years now since I worked on that architecture, but
Sparc is somewhat-modern and resolutely unaligned-unfriendly. It's
just that
Wow, Tom. This is great stuff. Thanks for it.
Lou Picciano
> On Sep 9, 2018, at 11:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I wondered why buildfarm member chipmunk has been failing hard
> for the last little while. Fortunately, it's supplying us with
> a handy backtrace:
>
> Program terminated with
I wrote:
> The attached revised patch contains a test case that demonstrably triggers
> the problem on gaur's host. Oddly, I do not get a crash either on a PPC
> Mac or a Raspberry Pi 3 running Raspbian. I'm not very sure why; I traced
> through things with gdb and it's definitely calling
Amit Kapila writes:
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 10:44 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>> Attached is a patch along these lines, let me know if you have
>> something else in mind? I have manually verified this with
>> force_parallel_mode=regress configuration in my development
>> environment. I don't have
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 10:44 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 7:05 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Amit Kapila writes:
> > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 8:58 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> In particular, SerializeParamList does this:
> > >>
> > >> /* Write flags. */
> > >>
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 7:05 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila writes:
> > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 8:58 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> In particular, SerializeParamList does this:
> >>
> >> /* Write flags. */
> >> memcpy(*start_address, >pflags, sizeof(uint16));
> >> *start_address += sizeof(uint16);
Amit Kapila writes:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 8:58 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> In particular, SerializeParamList does this:
>>
>> /* Write flags. */
>> memcpy(*start_address, >pflags, sizeof(uint16));
>> *start_address += sizeof(uint16);
>>
>> immediately followed by this:
>>
>>
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 8:58 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I wondered why buildfarm member chipmunk has been failing hard
> for the last little while. Fortunately, it's supplying us with
> a handy backtrace:
>
> Program terminated with signal 7, Bus error.
> #0 EA_flatten_into (allocated_size=,
24 matches
Mail list logo
