Tom,
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:17:18 -0500
From: Tom Lane
To: o...@pyrenet.fr
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas ,
Zdenek Kotala ,
pgsql-hackers list
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware
o...@pyrenet.fr writes:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008
* Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [081210 12:29]:
>> No, the standard way to deal with such issues is to set up two buildfarm
>> members. This would be a 100% waste of cycles for gcc-based members
>> anyway, since gcc generates the same code with or without -g. However,
>> for compilers where
Zdenek Kotala wrote:
Tom Lane napsal(a):
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
BTW, why does this work on warthog buildfarm member? Different
compiler version?
it's configured with --enable-debug.
Maybe run_build.pl should run twice, onece with --enable-
On Wednesday 10 December 2008 19:36:38 Tom Lane wrote:
> Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane napsal(a):
> >> No, the standard way to deal with such issues is to set up two buildfarm
> >> members.
> >
> > I think current infrastructures is not good for it. For example I would
> >
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 06:27:05PM +0100, Zdenek Kotala wrote:
> I think current infrastructures is not good for it. For example I would
> like to compile postgres on one machine with three different compiler and
> in 32 or 64 mode. Should I have 6 animals? I think better idea is to have
> one a
Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane napsal(a):
>> No, the standard way to deal with such issues is to set up two buildfarm
>> members.
> I think current infrastructures is not good for it. For example I would like
> to
> compile postgres on one machine with three different compi
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Never saw a problem with gcc, hp-ux, darwin or M$?
> Sure, that's not what I was saying. My point is, when there's a bug in
> one version of a compiler, we shouldn't try to adapt PostgreSQL to that
> bug. Instead, we sh
Tom Lane napsal(a):
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
BTW, why does this work on warthog buildfarm member? Different compiler
version?
it's configured with --enable-debug.
Maybe run_build.pl should run twice, onece with --enable-debug once
without.
N
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> BTW, why does this work on warthog buildfarm member? Different compiler
>> version?
>>
> it's configured with --enable-debug.
> Maybe run_build.pl should run twice, onece with --enable-debug once
> without.
No, the st
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I find it pretty scary to work around compiler bugs like this. Who
knows what other code it miscompiles. Can you reduce fsm_search_avail
into a small stand-alone test program, and file a bug report with the
compiler vendor
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:00:31 +0200
From: Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
pgsql-hackers list
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] cvs he
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > I find it pretty scary to work around compiler bugs like this. Who knows
> > what other code it miscompiles. Can you reduce fsm_search_avail into a
> > small stand-alone test program, and file a bug report with the compiler
> > vendor?
> >
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Hmm. It looks to me like the compiler is getting confused by the
> >> interaction between nodeno, leftnodeno, and rightnodeno. Try this
> >> patch to see if it gets around it. (This is a tad better
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I find it pretty scary to work around compiler bugs like this. Who knows
what other code it miscompiles. Can you reduce fsm_search_avail into a
small stand-alone test program, and file a bug report with the compiler
vendor?
BTW, why does this work on warthog buildfar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
Hmm. It looks to me like the compiler is getting confused by the
interaction between nodeno, leftnodeno, and rightnodeno. Try this
patch to see if it gets around it. (This is a tad better anyway
since it avoids examining the right c
Dear Tom,
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 13:24:21 -0500
From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
pgsql-hackers list
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] cvs he
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> FWIW, I have attached the 2 generated .s. Someone with knowledge of asm
> may want to have a look..
Hmm. It looks to me like the compiler is getting confused by the
interaction between nodeno, leftnodeno, and rightnodeno. Try this
patch to see if it gets around it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm, so the problem is in that second loop. The trick is to pick some
>> reasonably non-ugly code change that makes the problem go away.
>I tried that and moving leftok,rightok declaration outside the loop, and
> refactor the
EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> pgsql-hackers list
>> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> writes:
>>> Guess what! with th
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 09:23:06 -0500
From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
pgsql-hackers list
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Guess what! with the fprintf .. descending node... in place, everything
> goes well. The optimizer definitly does something weird along the
> definition/assignement of leftok/rightok..
Hmm, so the problem is in that second loop. The trick is to pick some
reasonably n
[EMAIL PROTECTED] napsal(a):
I first misread your mail, and added only the first fprintf , while I
was uploading a 400M initdb.log, I went back to add the second one.
Guess what! with the fprintf .. descending node... in place, everything
goes well. The optimizer definitly does something we
Hi Tom,
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:15:28 -0500
From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
pgsql-hackers list
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] cvs he
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> the infinite loop occurs in fsm_search_avail when called for the 32nd
> time.
... which is the first time that the initial test doesn't make it fall
out immediately.
Would you add a couple more printouts, along the line of
nodeno = target;
while (nod
Dear all,
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 09:17:52 +0200
From: Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
pgsql-hackers list
Subject: Re: [HACKER
Tom Lane wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As you can see in attached initdb.log, it seems fsm_search_avail is called
repeatedly and args are sort of looping...
That's expected, since the system is inserting a lot of tuples
successively.
Right. I suspect it was in the infinite loop yet. Try
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> As you can see in attached initdb.log, it seems fsm_search_avail is called
> repeatedly and args are sort of looping...
That's expected, since the system is inserting a lot of tuples
successively. What it looks like to me is that the failing call is the
first one wher
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 13:19:15 +0200
From: Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
pgsql-hackers list
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware
[EMAIL PROT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Could you zip up the FSM file of that relation (a file called e.g
"789_fsm"), and send it over? Or the whole data directory, it
shouldn't be that big.
you get both.
Thanks. Hmm, the FSM pages are full of zeros, as I wo
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:29:01 +0200
From: Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
pgsql-hackers list
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware
[EMAIL PROT
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> Looking at fsm_rebuild_page, I wonder if the compiler is treating
> >> "int" as an unsigned integer? That would cause an infinite loop.
> >>
> >>
> > No, a simple printf of nodeno shows it starting at 4096 all the way
> > down to 0
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:47:19 +0200
From: Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
pgsql-hackers list
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] cvs head ini
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looking at fsm_rebuild_page, I wonder if the compiler is treating
"int" as an unsigned integer? That would cause an infinite loop.
No, a simple printf of nodeno shows it starting at 4096 all the way
down to 0, starting back at 4096...
I wonder if leftchild/righ
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:47:19 +0200
From: Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
pgsql-hackers list
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware
[EMAIL PROT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Suivi de pile correspondant à p1, Programme postmaster
*[0] fsm_rebuild_page( présumé: 0xbd9731a0, 0, 0xbd9731a0) [0x81e6a97]
[1] fsm_search_avail( présumé: 0x2, 0x6, 0x1) [0x81e68d9]
[2] fsm_set_and_search(0x84b2250, 0, 0, 0x2e, 0x5, 0x6, 0x2e,
0x8047416, 0xb4) [0x81
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, Zdenek Kotala wrote:
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:22:25 +0100
From: Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: pgsql-hackers list
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware
Could you generate a core and send a stacktrace?
kill SIGABRT
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, Zdenek Kotala wrote:
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:22:25 +0100
From: Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: pgsql-hackers list
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware
Could you generate a core and send a stacktrace?
kill SIGABRT
Could you generate a core and send a stacktrace?
kill SIGABRT should do that.
Zdenek
[EMAIL PROTECTED] napsal(a):
Hi all,
cvs head configured without --enable-debug hang in initdb while making
check.
warthog doesn't exhibit it because it's configured with debug.
when it hangs, po
Hi all,
cvs head configured without --enable-debug hang in initdb while making
check.
warthog doesn't exhibit it because it's configured with debug.
when it hangs, postmaster takes 100% cpu doing nothing. initdb waits for
it while creating template db.
According to truss, the last usefull
39 matches
Mail list logo
