On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 08:17:36PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
So I'd like to confirm that this issue doesn't affect 9.1.
It doesn't. I suspect it has something to do with 173e29aa5 or one
of the nearby commits in backend/regex/.
The following snippet reveals that 9.3.1 has a bug
in regexp_matches, which uninterruptably keeps CPU
spinning for minutes:
-8---
\timing
SET statement_timeout = 2;
-- this is only to show statement_timeout is effective here
SELECT count(*)
I've just tested 9.3.3 and it is _also_ affected.
Should I report the regression somewhere else ?
--strk;
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:17:59AM +0100, Sandro Santilli wrote:
The following snippet reveals that 9.3.1 has a bug
in regexp_matches, which uninterruptably keeps CPU
spinning for
On 02/21/2014 05:17 PM, Sandro Santilli wrote:
The following snippet reveals that 9.3.1 has a bug
in regexp_matches, which uninterruptably keeps CPU
spinning for minutes:
Huh. So it does. That's interesting.
(You should generally report things to pgsql-b...@postgresql.org btw,
not -hackers)
On Feb21, 2014, at 16:46 , Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
The real question IMO is why it's taking so long. It looks like
cfindloop(...) is being called multiple times, with each call taking a
couple of seconds.
Yeah, I wondered about this too. I've shortened the example a bit -
On 02/22/2014 12:04 AM, Florian Pflug wrote:
On Feb21, 2014, at 16:46 , Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
The real question IMO is why it's taking so long. It looks like
cfindloop(...) is being called multiple times, with each call taking a
couple of seconds.
Yeah, I wondered about
On Feb21, 2014, at 17:29 , Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
The problem report claims that the issue does not occur on 9.1, but yet:
git diff REL9_1_STABLE master -- ./src/backend/utils/adt/regexp.c
is utterly trivial; a copyright date line change, and 1609797c which
just tweaks
Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
So I'd like to confirm that this issue doesn't affect 9.1.
It doesn't. I suspect it has something to do with 173e29aa5 or one
of the nearby commits in backend/regex/.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
I wrote:
Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
So I'd like to confirm that this issue doesn't affect 9.1.
It doesn't. I suspect it has something to do with 173e29aa5 or one
of the nearby commits in backend/regex/.
Indeed, git bisect fingers that commit as introducing the problem.
What
