Jim Nasby writes:
> On 1/9/17 5:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah. I looked at that but couldn't get terribly excited about it,
>> because AFAICS, Tcl in general is apt to fall over under sufficient
>> memory pressure.
> Though, since a memory error could just as likely
On 1/9/17 5:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby writes:
Hmm... I suspect there's more places where this could be a problem. For
example, pltcl_quote calls palloc, which could ereport as well.
Yeah. I looked at that but couldn't get terribly excited about it,
because
Jim Nasby writes:
> Hmm... I suspect there's more places where this could be a problem. For
> example, pltcl_quote calls palloc, which could ereport as well.
Yeah. I looked at that but couldn't get terribly excited about it,
because AFAICS, Tcl in general is apt to
On 1/9/17 4:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby writes:
Got a stack trace. The abort happens in TclObjLookupVar:
Yeah, I found the problem: pltcl_returnnext calls pltcl_build_tuple_result
which may throw elog(ERROR), leaving the Tcl interpreter's state all
screwed up,
Jim Nasby writes:
> Got a stack trace. The abort happens in TclObjLookupVar:
Yeah, I found the problem: pltcl_returnnext calls pltcl_build_tuple_result
which may throw elog(ERROR), leaving the Tcl interpreter's state all
screwed up, so that later functions go south. It
On 1/9/17 3:12 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
I'm compiling 8.4 now, will see if I can duplicate.
Got a stack trace. The abort happens in TclObjLookupVar:
if (nsPtr->varResProc != NULL || iPtr->resolverPtr != NULL) {
nsPtr itself is NULL.
* thread #1: tid = 0x, 0x00010949bca8
On 1/9/17 1:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
Pushed with that and some other, mostly-cosmetic changes.
Hmm, looks like the new test cases have turned up a pre-existing bug.
Some of the buildfarm is showing crashes :-(. It looks like all the
unhappy critters are running Tcl 8.4.something,
I wrote:
> Pushed with that and some other, mostly-cosmetic changes.
Hmm, looks like the new test cases have turned up a pre-existing bug.
Some of the buildfarm is showing crashes :-(. It looks like all the
unhappy critters are running Tcl 8.4.something, which might be a
coincidence but I bet
Jim Nasby writes:
> On 1/8/17 11:25 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> But I don't understand
>> how you got the sample output shown in the patch. Is this based
>> on some unsubmitted changes in pltcl's error handling?
> Maybe it's a version difference?
> echo 'puts [info
On 1/8/17 11:25 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
But I don't understand
how you got the sample output shown in the patch. Is this based
on some unsubmitted changes in pltcl's error handling?
AFAICT you've got everything. What I had on my end is:
create function public.tcl_error_handling_test(text)
Jim Nasby writes:
> On 1/6/17 2:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This is in a format that neither patch(1) nor "git apply" recognize.
>> Please resubmit in a more usual format, diff -c or diff -u perhaps.
> Odd, dunno what happened there. New patch attached.
This applies, but
On 1/6/17 2:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby writes:
On 10/31/16 3:24 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
This patch increases test coverage for pltcl, from 70% to 83%. Aside
from that, the work on this uncovered 2 new bugs (the trigger return one
I just submitted, as well as a bug
Jim Nasby writes:
> On 10/31/16 3:24 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
>> This patch increases test coverage for pltcl, from 70% to 83%. Aside
>> from that, the work on this uncovered 2 new bugs (the trigger return one
>> I just submitted, as well as a bug in the SRF/composite
On 10/31/16 3:24 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
This patch increases test coverage for pltcl, from 70% to 83%. Aside
from that, the work on this uncovered 2 new bugs (the trigger return one
I just submitted, as well as a bug in the SRF/composite patch).
Rebased patch attached. Test coverage is now at
This patch increases test coverage for pltcl, from 70% to 83%. Aside
from that, the work on this uncovered 2 new bugs (the trigger return one
I just submitted, as well as a bug in the SRF/composite patch).
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics,
15 matches
Mail list logo