Re: [BUGS] BUG #6218: TRAP: FailedAssertion( "!(owner->nsnapshots == 0)", File: "resowner.c", Line: 365)

2011-09-26 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera writes: > Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of lun sep 26 13:26:37 -0300 2011: >> The place where that refcount normally gets dropped is >> AtEarlyCommit_Snapshot, but that isn't going to be called at all in >> aborted-transaction cleanup. Worse, if we just transposed it over to be

Re: [BUGS] BUG #6218: TRAP: FailedAssertion( "!(owner->nsnapshots == 0)", File: "resowner.c", Line: 365)

2011-09-26 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of lun sep 26 13:26:37 -0300 2011: > > y...@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi) writes: > >> Maybe, but I'd still like to see a test case, because I can't reproduce > >> any such problem by preparing ROLLBACK in an aborted transaction. > > > reading GetTransacti

Re: [BUGS] BUG #6218: TRAP: FailedAssertion( "!(owner->nsnapshots == 0)", File: "resowner.c", Line: 365)

2011-09-26 Thread Tom Lane
y...@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi) writes: >> Maybe, but I'd still like to see a test case, because I can't reproduce >> any such problem by preparing ROLLBACK in an aborted transaction. > reading GetTransactionSnapshot, it seems that the problem happens > only with IsolationUsesXactSnapsho

Re: [BUGS] BUG #6218: TRAP: FailedAssertion( "!(owner->nsnapshots == 0)", File: "resowner.c", Line: 365)

2011-09-26 Thread YAMAMOTO Takashi
hi, > y...@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi) writes: >>> There isn't terribly much we can do with this report unless you can >>> provide a complete test case to reproduce it. > >> after some investigation, i think it is triggered by protocol-level prepare >> of ROLLBACK in an aborted transacti

Re: [BUGS] BUG #6218: TRAP: FailedAssertion( "!(owner->nsnapshots == 0)", File: "resowner.c", Line: 365)

2011-09-25 Thread Tom Lane
y...@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi) writes: >> There isn't terribly much we can do with this report unless you can >> provide a complete test case to reproduce it. > after some investigation, i think it is triggered by protocol-level prepare > of ROLLBACK in an aborted transaction. does the

Re: [BUGS] BUG #6218: TRAP: FailedAssertion( "!(owner->nsnapshots == 0)", File: "resowner.c", Line: 365)

2011-09-23 Thread YAMAMOTO Takashi
hi, > "YAMAMOTO Takashi" writes: >> 9.2devel (2562dcea811eb642e1c5442e1ede9fe268278157) > >> ERROR: could not serialize access due to concurrent update >> STATEMENT: UPDATE file SET atime = current_timestamp WHERE fileid = $1 >> TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(owner->nsnapshots == 0)", File: "resowne

Re: [BUGS] BUG #6218: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(owner->nsnapshots == 0)", File: "resowner.c", Line: 365)

2011-09-21 Thread Tom Lane
"YAMAMOTO Takashi" writes: > 9.2devel (2562dcea811eb642e1c5442e1ede9fe268278157) > ERROR: could not serialize access due to concurrent update > STATEMENT: UPDATE file SET atime = current_timestamp WHERE fileid = $1 > TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(owner->nsnapshots == 0)", File: "resowner.c", Line: >

[BUGS] BUG #6218: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(owner->nsnapshots == 0)", File: "resowner.c", Line: 365)

2011-09-21 Thread YAMAMOTO Takashi
The following bug has been logged online: Bug reference: 6218 Logged by: YAMAMOTO Takashi Email address: y...@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp PostgreSQL version: 9.2 Operating system: NetBSD Description:TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(owner->nsnapshots == 0)", File: "resowner.c", Line: 36