On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> [ LockRefindAndRelease ] lacks an
>> Assert(FastPathStrongRelationLocks->count[fasthashcode] > 0). I think
>> we should add one.
>
> Absolutely.
Turns out there were two places missing such an assertion: the 2PC
path, and the abort-strong-lock-
Robert Haas writes:
> On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=rover_firefly&dt=2014-04-06%2017%3A04%3A00
> Uggh. That's unfortunate, but not terribly surprising: I didn't think
> that missing volatile was very likely to be the ca
On 2014-04-07 10:45:51 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hm. It generally might be interesting to get a few !X86 buildfarms
> > running builds with LTO enabled. That might expose some dangerous
> > assumptions more easily.
>
> I strongly suspect
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-04-07 10:06:07 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I'm a bit suspicious of the patches to
>> static-ify stuff, since that might cause the compiler to think it
>> could move things across function calls that it hadn't thought
>> move-able bef
On 2014-04-07 10:06:07 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I'm a bit suspicious of the patches to
> static-ify stuff, since that might cause the compiler to think it
> could move things across function calls that it hadn't thought
> move-able before, but FastPathStrongLocks references would seem to be
> th
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=rover_firefly&dt=2014-04-06%2017%3A04%3A00
>
> TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(FastPathStrongRelationLocks->count[fasthashcode] >
> 0)", File: "lock.c", Line: 1240)
> [53418a51.6a08:2] LOG: server p
