On 7 April 2011 16:56, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Brendan Jurd <dire...@gmail.com> writes:
>> TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((data - start) == data_size)", File:
>> "heaptuple.c", Line: 255)
>
> [ scratches head ... ] That implies that heap_fill_tuple came to a
> different conclusion about a tuple's data size than the immediately
> preceding heap_compute_data_size. Which I would sure want to believe
> is impossible. Have you checked for flaky memory on this machine?
>
Memtest didn't report any errors. I intend to try swapping out the
RAM tomorrow, but in the meantime we got a *different* assertion
failure today. The fact that we are tripping over various different
assertions seems to lend further weight to the flaky hardware
hypothesis.
TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(((lpp)->lp_flags == 1))", File: "heapam.c", Line: 727)
#0 0x00007f2773f23a75 in *__GI_raise (sig=<value optimised out>)
at ../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:64
#1 0x00007f2773f275c0 in *__GI_abort () at abort.c:92
#2 0x00000000006f9eed in ExceptionalCondition (conditionName=<value
optimised out>,
errorType=<value optimised out>, fileName=<value optimised out>,
lineNumber=<value optimised out>) at assert.c:57
#3 0x0000000000473641 in heapgettup_pagemode (scan=0x2366da8,
dir=<value optimised out>,
nkeys=<value optimised out>, key=<value optimised out>) at heapam.c:727
#4 0x0000000000474b16 in heap_getnext (scan=0x2366da8,
direction=1495) at heapam.c:1322
#5 0x0000000000590fcb in SeqNext (node=<value optimised out>) at
nodeSeqscan.c:66
#6 0x00000000005808ff in ExecScanFetch (node=0x22d5ff8,
accessMtd=<value optimised out>,
recheckMtd=<value optimised out>) at execScan.c:82
#7 ExecScan (node=0x22d5ff8, accessMtd=<value optimised out>,
recheckMtd=<value optimised out>) at execScan.c:164
#8 0x0000000000578d58 in ExecProcNode (node=0x22d5ff8) at execProcnode.c:378
#9 0x000000000058abf7 in ExecHashJoinOuterGetTuple (node=0x22d4a60)
at nodeHashjoin.c:562
#10 ExecHashJoin (node=0x22d4a60) at nodeHashjoin.c:187
#11 0x0000000000578ca8 in ExecProcNode (node=0x22d4a60) at execProcnode.c:427
#12 0x000000000058abf7 in ExecHashJoinOuterGetTuple (node=0x22d3430)
at nodeHashjoin.c:562
#13 ExecHashJoin (node=0x22d3430) at nodeHashjoin.c:187
#14 0x0000000000578ca8 in ExecProcNode (node=0x22d3430) at execProcnode.c:427
#15 0x0000000000590021 in ExecNestLoop (node=0x22d26d8) at nodeNestloop.c:120
#16 0x0000000000578cc8 in ExecProcNode (node=0x22d26d8) at execProcnode.c:419
#17 0x0000000000590021 in ExecNestLoop (node=0x22c0c88) at nodeNestloop.c:120
#18 0x0000000000578cc8 in ExecProcNode (node=0x22c0c88) at execProcnode.c:419
#19 0x0000000000591bf9 in ExecSort (node=0x22c0a50) at nodeSort.c:102
#20 0x0000000000578c88 in ExecProcNode (node=0x22c0a50) at execProcnode.c:438
#21 0x000000000057795e in ExecutePlan (queryDesc=0x23151f0,
direction=1495, count=0)
at execMain.c:1187
#22 standard_ExecutorRun (queryDesc=0x23151f0, direction=1495,
count=0) at execMain.c:280
#23 0x0000000000643d67 in PortalRunSelect (portal=0x229bf78,
forward=<value optimised out>, count=0, dest=0x218a120) at pquery.c:952
#24 0x0000000000645210 in PortalRun (portal=<value optimised out>,
count=<value optimised out>, isTopLevel=<value optimised out>,
dest=<value optimised out>, altdest=<value optimised out>,
completionTag=<value optimised out>) at pquery.c:796
#25 0x00000000006428dc in exec_execute_message (argc=<value optimised out>,
argv=<value optimised out>, username=<value optimised out>) at
postgres.c:2003
#26 PostgresMain (argc=<value optimised out>, argv=<value optimised out>,
username=<value optimised out>) at postgres.c:3988
#27 0x0000000000607351 in BackendRun () at postmaster.c:3555
#28 BackendStartup () at postmaster.c:3242
#29 ServerLoop () at postmaster.c:1431
#30 0x0000000000609c6d in PostmasterMain (argc=35406528, argv=0x2185160)
at postmaster.c:1092
#31 0x00000000005a99a0 in main (argc=5, argv=0x2185140) at main.c:188
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
