On 03/26/2013 09:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Stefan Kaltenbrunner <ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc> writes: >> On 03/26/2013 08:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> It looks from here like the isolationtester client is what's dropping >>> the ball --- the backend states are unsurprising, and two of them are >>> waiting for a new client command. Can you get a stack trace from the >>> isolationtester process? > >> https://www.kaltenbrunner.cc/files/isolationtester.txt > > Hmm ... isolationtester.c:584 is in the code that tries to cancel the > current permutation (test case) after realizing that it's constructed > an invalid permutation. It looks like the preceding PQcancel() failed > for some reason, since the waiting backend is still waiting. The > isolationtester code doesn't bother to check for an error result there, > which is kinda bad, not that it's clear what it could do about it. > Could you look at the contents of the local variable "buf" in the > run_permutation stack frame? Or else try modifying the code along the > lines of > > - PQcancel(cancel, buf, sizeof(buf)); > + if (!PQcancel(cancel, buf, sizeof(buf))) > + fprintf(stderr, "PQcancel failed: %s\n", buf); > > and see if it prints anything interesting before hanging up.
hmm - will look into that in a bit - but I also just noticed that on the same day spoonbill broke there was also a commit to that file immediately before that code adding the fflush() calls. Stefan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers