Marshall, Steve wrote:
> I'm glad to see the patch making its way through the process. I'm also
> glad you guys do comprehensive testing before accepting it, since we are
> only able to test in a more limited range of environments.
>
> We have applied the patch to our 8.2.4 installations and are
TED]
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 8:33 PM
To: Marshall, Steve
Cc: pgsql-patches@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] PL/TCL Patch to prevent postgres from becoming
multithreaded
"Marshall, Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There is a problem in PL/TCL that can cause the
"Marshall, Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There is a problem in PL/TCL that can cause the postgres backend to
> become multithreaded. Postgres is not designed to be multithreaded, so
> this causes downstream errors in signal handling. We have seen this
> cause a number of "unexpected st
Tom Lane wrote:
> Stefan Kaltenbrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> yeah testing that patch now (seems to apply just fine on -HEAD) but it
>> seems that there is something strange going on because I just got:
>
> ! ERROR: could not read block 2 of relation 1663/16384/2606: read only 0 of
> 819
Tom Lane wrote:
> Stefan Kaltenbrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> yeah testing that patch now (seems to apply just fine on -HEAD) but it
>> seems that there is something strange going on because I just got:
>
> ! ERROR: could not read block 2 of relation 1663/16384/2606: read only 0 of
> 819
Stefan Kaltenbrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> yeah testing that patch now (seems to apply just fine on -HEAD) but it
> seems that there is something strange going on because I just got:
! ERROR: could not read block 2 of relation 1663/16384/2606: read only 0 of
8192 bytes
Is that repeatabl
Tom Lane wrote:
> Stefan Kaltenbrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> hmm i wonder if that could be related to:
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-01/msg00377.php
>
> I had forgotten that thread, but it sure does look related doesn't it?
> Do you want to try Steve's proposed patc
Stefan Kaltenbrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> hmm i wonder if that could be related to:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-01/msg00377.php
I had forgotten that thread, but it sure does look related doesn't it?
Do you want to try Steve's proposed patch and see if it fixes it?
Tom Lane wrote:
> Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Bruce Momjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
There is a problem in PL/TCL that can cause the postgres backend to
become multithreaded. Postgres is not designed to be multithreaded, so
this causes downstream errors in s
OK, moved to patches list.
---
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Gregory Stark wrote:
> > Do we have anyone actively maintaining pltcl these days? I'm intentionally
> > quite unfamiliar with Tcl or I would be happy to verify it'
Gregory Stark wrote:
Do we have anyone actively maintaining pltcl these days? I'm intentionally
quite unfamiliar with Tcl or I would be happy to verify it's reasonable. But
the explanation seems pretty convincing. If we don't have anyone maintaining
it then we're pretty much at the mercy of app
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Bruce Momjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> There is a problem in PL/TCL that can cause the postgres backend to
>>> become multithreaded. Postgres is not designed to be multithreaded, so
>>> this causes downstream errors in signal handling.
> U
"Bruce Momjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This has been saved for the 8.4 release:
>
> http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold
>
> ---
>
> Marshall, Steve wrote:
>> There is a problem in PL/TCL that can
This has been saved for the 8.4 release:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold
---
Marshall, Steve wrote:
> There is a problem in PL/TCL that can cause the postgres backend to
> become multithreaded.
14 matches
Mail list logo
