Re: [HACKERS] Server crash (FailedAssertion) due to catcache refcount mis-handling

2017-08-13 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Not having heard anyone arguing against that, I'll go make it so, > ie AtEOXact_CatCache is toast in all branches. Great, thanks. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: [HACKERS] Server crash (FailedAssertion) due to catcache refcount mis-handling

2017-08-13 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Robert Haas writes: >>> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote: In the meantime, I think my vote would be to remove

Re: [HACKERS] Server crash (FailedAssertion) due to catcache refcount mis-handling

2017-08-13 Thread Tom Lane
Andreas Seltenreich writes: > Tom Lane writes: >> I wonder if Andreas would be interested in trying the randomly-timed- >> SIGTERM thing with sqlsmith. > So far, most of the core dumps generated are Jeevan's assertion failing > with backtraces through SearchCatCacheList. The

Re: [HACKERS] Server crash (FailedAssertion) due to catcache refcount mis-handling

2017-08-13 Thread Andreas Seltenreich
Tom Lane writes: > I wonder if Andreas would be interested in trying the randomly-timed- > SIGTERM thing with sqlsmith. So far, most of the core dumps generated are Jeevan's assertion failing with backtraces through SearchCatCacheList. The rest is failing this assertion: TRAP:

Re: [HACKERS] Server crash (FailedAssertion) due to catcache refcount mis-handling

2017-08-10 Thread Michael Paquier
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 2:50 AM, Andreas Seltenreich > wrote: >> Will do. Won't miss this chance to try out discostu's extension >> pg_rage_terminator[1] :-) >> [1]

Re: [HACKERS] Server crash (FailedAssertion) due to catcache refcount mis-handling

2017-08-10 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> In the meantime, I think my vote would be to remove AtEOXact_CatCache. > >> In all supported branches? > >

Re: [HACKERS] Server crash (FailedAssertion) due to catcache refcount mis-handling

2017-08-10 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 2:50 AM, Andreas Seltenreich wrote: > Will do. Won't miss this chance to try out discostu's extension > pg_rage_terminator[1] :-) > [1] https://github.com/disco-stu/pg_rage_terminator Oh, that's *awesome*. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB:

Re: [HACKERS] Server crash (FailedAssertion) due to catcache refcount mis-handling

2017-08-10 Thread Andreas Seltenreich
Tom Lane writes: > I wonder if Andreas would be interested in trying the randomly-timed- > SIGTERM thing with sqlsmith. Will do. Won't miss this chance to try out discostu's extension pg_rage_terminator[1] :-) regards, Andreas Footnotes: [1] https://github.com/disco-stu/pg_rage_terminator

Re: [HACKERS] Server crash (FailedAssertion) due to catcache refcount mis-handling

2017-08-08 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> In the meantime, I think my vote would be to remove AtEOXact_CatCache. > In all supported branches? Whatever we do about this issue, I don't feel a need to do it further back

Re: [HACKERS] Server crash (FailedAssertion) due to catcache refcount mis-handling

2017-08-08 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > In the meantime, I think my vote would be to remove AtEOXact_CatCache. In all supported branches? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] Server crash (FailedAssertion) due to catcache refcount mis-handling

2017-08-08 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Yeah, I thought about weakening the assertions too, but I couldn't >> see a fix of that kind that didn't seem mighty ad-hoc. > More concretely, the present example seems no

Re: [HACKERS] Server crash (FailedAssertion) due to catcache refcount mis-handling

2017-08-08 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Yeah, I thought about weakening the assertions too, but I couldn't > see a fix of that kind that didn't seem mighty ad-hoc. I don't really see what's ad-hoc about skipping it in the case where a FATAL is in progress. I mean,

Re: [HACKERS] Server crash (FailedAssertion) due to catcache refcount mis-handling

2017-08-08 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> We could respond to this by using PG_ENSURE_ERROR_CLEANUP there instead >> of plain PG_TRY. But I have an itchy feeling that there may be a lot >> of places with similar issues.

Re: [HACKERS] Server crash (FailedAssertion) due to catcache refcount mis-handling

2017-08-08 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> By looking at the stack-trace, and as discussed it with my team members; >> what we have observed that in SearchCatCacheList(), we are incrementing >> refcount and then decrementing it at the end. However for some reason, if

Re: [HACKERS] Server crash (FailedAssertion) due to catcache refcount mis-handling

2017-08-08 Thread Tom Lane
Jeevan Chalke writes: > We have observed a random server crash (FailedAssertion), while running few > tests at our end. Stack-trace is attached. > By looking at the stack-trace, and as discussed it with my team members; > what we have observed that in

[HACKERS] Server crash (FailedAssertion) due to catcache refcount mis-handling

2017-08-08 Thread Jeevan Chalke
Hi, We have observed a random server crash (FailedAssertion), while running few tests at our end. Stack-trace is attached. By looking at the stack-trace, and as discussed it with my team members; what we have observed that in SearchCatCacheList(), we are incrementing refcount and then