Re: [HACKERS] initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)

On 1 July 2016 at 09:02, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > Craig Ringer wrote: > >> On 30 June 2016 at 20:19, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > >> > >> > Hmm, so what about

Re: [HACKERS] initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Craig Ringer wrote: >> On 30 June 2016 at 20:19, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> >> > Hmm, so what about a pure 32bit build, if such a thing still exists? If >> > so and it causes the same

Re: [HACKERS] initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)

Craig Ringer wrote: > On 30 June 2016 at 20:19, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > Hmm, so what about a pure 32bit build, if such a thing still exists? If > > so and it causes the same crash, perhaps we should have one member for > > each VS version running on 32bit x86. > >

Re: [HACKERS] initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)

On 30 June 2016 at 20:19, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Craig Ringer wrote: > > On 30 June 2016 at 07:21, Tom Lane wrote: > > > > > Alvaro Herrera writes: > > > > Tom Lane wrote: > > > >> Thanks for investigating! I'll go

Re: [HACKERS] initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)

Craig Ringer wrote: > On 30 June 2016 at 07:21, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Alvaro Herrera writes: > > > Tom Lane wrote: > > >> Thanks for investigating! I'll go commit that change. I wish someone > > >> would put up a buildfarm critter using VS2013,

Re: [HACKERS] initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)

On 30 June 2016 at 07:21, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Thanks for investigating! I'll go commit that change. I wish someone > >> would put up a buildfarm critter using VS2013, though. > > > Uh, isn't that what

Re: [HACKERS] initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)

Alvaro Herrera writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Thanks for investigating! I'll go commit that change. I wish someone >> would put up a buildfarm critter using VS2013, though. > Uh, isn't that what woodlouse is using? Well, it wasn't reporting this crash, so there's

Re: [HACKERS] initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)

Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki > wrote: > >> From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > >> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Michael Paquier > >> Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 11:37 AM > >> On

Re: [HACKERS] initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)

Tom Lane wrote: > "Haroon ." writes: > > The problem appears to be related to 'taking the address of a formal > > parameter'. NOT passing the original formal parameter to > > get_foreign_key_join_selectivity fixes it (dodges the problem) on VS2013. > > Thanks for

Re: [HACKERS] initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)

"Haroon ." writes: > On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 6:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> This leads to a couple of suggestions for dodging the problem: >> >> 2. Don't pass the original formal parameter to >> get_foreign_key_join_selectivity, ie do something like

Re: [HACKERS] initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 6:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > If that is the explanation, I'm suspicious that it's got something to do > with the interaction of a static inline-able (single-call-site) function > and taking the address of a formal parameter. We certainly have multiple

Re: [HACKERS] initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)

"Haroon ." writes: > And if I comment these out i.e. setup_description, setup_privileges and > 'setup_schema' it seem to progress well without any errors/crashes. Presumably, what you've done there is remove every single join query from the post-bootstrap scripts.

Re: [HACKERS] initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)

Craig Ringer writes: > On 24 June 2016 at 21:34, Tom Lane wrote: >> TBH, this looks more like a compiler bug than anything else. > I tend to agree. Especially since valgrind has no complaints on x64 linux, > and neither does DrMemory for 32-bit builds

Re: [HACKERS] initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)

On 24 June 2016 at 21:34, Tom Lane wrote: > > TBH, this looks more like a compiler bug than anything else. I tend to agree. Especially since valgrind has no complaints on x64 linux, and neither does DrMemory for 32-bit builds with the same toolchain on the same Windows and

Re: [HACKERS] initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)

> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > > I'd like more details from those whose installs are crashing. What exact > > vcvars env did you run under, with which exact cl.exe version? This is a Windows server 2012 R2 Standard. Devenv: Microsoft

Re: [HACKERS] initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)

Craig Ringer writes: > I have absolutely no idea why it's trying to access memory at what looks > like (uint64)(-1) though. Nothing in the auto vars list: > + 0x0043f7b0 {0x09e32600 {type=T_List (656) > length=1 head=0x09e325e0

Re: [HACKERS] initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: >> I was helping Haroon with this last night. I don't have access to the >> original thread and he's not around so I don't know how much he said. I'll >> repeat our findings here. Craig, I am around now looking

Re: [HACKERS] initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)

I have been running bisect, it breaks at this commit: *commit 100340e2dcd05d6505082a8fe343fb2ef2fa5b2a* *Author: Tom Lane >* *Date: Sat Jun 18 15:22:34 2016 -0400* *Restore foreign-key-aware estimation of join relation sizes.* *This patch

Re: [HACKERS] initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: >> I was helping Haroon with this last night. I don't have access to the >> original thread and he's not around so I don't know how much he said. I'll >> repeat our findings here. Craig, I am around now looking

Re: [HACKERS] initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > > > On 24 June 2016 at 10:28, Michael Paquier wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Craig Ringer >> wrote: >> > * Launch a VS x86 command prompt >> > *

Re: [HACKERS] initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)

On 24 June 2016 at 10:28, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Craig Ringer > wrote: > > * Launch a VS x86 command prompt > > * devenv /debugexe bin\initdb.exe -D test > > * Set a breakpoint in initdb.c:3557 and

Re: [HACKERS] initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)

On 24 June 2016 at 13:00, Craig Ringer wrote: > I've now reproduced it with: > I can also confirm that it _doesn't_ crash with the same SDK using a 32-bit build (running under WoW on x64). cl 18.00.40629 for x86, env: %comspec% /k ""C:\Program Files

Re: [HACKERS] initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)

On 24 June 2016 at 12:31, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Craig Ringer > wrote: > > Given that it's only been seen in VS 2013, it's particularly odd that > it's > > not biting woodlouse. > > > > I'd like more details

Re: [HACKERS] initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > Given that it's only been seen in VS 2013, it's particularly odd that it's > not biting woodlouse. > > I'd like more details from those whose installs are crashing. What exact > vcvars env did you run under, with which

Re: [HACKERS] initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)

On 24 June 2016 at 05:17, Umair Shahid wrote: > >> > It's still strange that it doesn't affect woodlouse. >> >> Or any of the other Windows critters... >> >> > Given that it's only been seen in VS 2013, it's particularly odd that it's not

Re: [HACKERS] initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: >> From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org >> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Michael Paquier >> Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 11:37 AM >> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Craig

Re: [HACKERS] initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)

> From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Michael Paquier > Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 11:37 AM > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Craig Ringer > wrote: > It might be worth testing that out and adding an initdb

Re: [HACKERS] initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > Yes, quite possibly, actually. I should've just got Haroon to build me a new > initdb without the priv setting and with creation of crashdumps/ . > > It might be worth testing that out and adding an initdb startup flag

Re: [HACKERS] initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)

On 24 June 2016 at 10:28, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Craig Ringer > wrote: > > * Launch a VS x86 command prompt > > * devenv /debugexe bin\initdb.exe -D test > > * Set a breakpoint in initdb.c:3557 and

Re: [HACKERS] initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)

On 24 June 2016 at 10:21, Craig Ringer wrote: > * To get a backtrace, I had to: > > * Launch a VS x86 command prompt > * devenv /debugexe bin\initdb.exe -D test > * Set a breakpoint in initdb.c:3557 and initdb.c:3307 > * Run > * When it traps at

Re: [HACKERS] initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > * Launch a VS x86 command prompt > * devenv /debugexe bin\initdb.exe -D test > * Set a breakpoint in initdb.c:3557 and initdb.c:3307 > * Run > * When it traps at get_restricted_token(), manually move the

Re: [HACKERS] initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)

On 24 June 2016 at 05:17, Umair Shahid wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Umair Shahid < > umair.sha...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >> >> -- Forwarded message -- >> From: Tom Lane >> Date: Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 9:32 PM >> Subject:

[HACKERS] initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Umair Shahid wrote: > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Tom Lane > Date: Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 9:32 PM > Subject: Re: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready > To: Magnus Hagander