On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:19:56AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes:
> > On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 09:25:47AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> I think a simplistic solution is to declare the variable volatile.
> >> Would you test that and report back?
>
> > Yes, making oldcontext volati
Kurt Roeckx writes:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 09:25:47AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I think a simplistic solution is to declare the variable volatile.
>> Would you test that and report back?
> Yes, making oldcontext volatile makes the test pass.
This is a gcc bug and you should report it.
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 09:25:47AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> I think a simplistic solution is to declare the variable volatile.
> Would you test that and report back?
Yes, making oldcontext volatile makes the test pass.
It now fails at the ECPG-Check stage, but it seems that is a common
p
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> #3 0x006c8033 in MemoryContextAlloc (context=0x0, size=112)
> at mcxt.c:507
> #4 0x006abe82 in CopyErrorData () at elog.c:1082
> #5 0x2b41ea61a755 in PLy_spi_execute_plan (ob=,
> list=, limit=) at
> plpython.c:2587
It's calling CopyErrorData wi
Hi,
I've been trying a gcc 4.4 snapshot (20081213) on buildfarm member
panda. It gets a abort during the pl-install-check part.
Here is the backtrace:
Core was generated by `postgres: build-farm pl_regression [local] SELECT '.
Program terminated with signal 6, Aborted.
[New process 3588]
#0 0x0
