On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> Just out of curiosity, what happens if you try it with the attached patch?
>
> Surely that's pretty unsafe?
Yes. I was just curious to see whether it would work. I think what
we need to do is teach pqsignal() to block al
Robert Haas writes:
> Just out of curiosity, what happens if you try it with the attached patch?
Surely that's pretty unsafe?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgr
On 05/23/2017 06:25 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
Just out of curiosity, what happens if you try it with the attached patch?
Thanks, issue seems to be fixed after applying your patch.
--
regards,tushar
EnterpriseDB https://www.enterprisedb.com/
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-h
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 1:46 AM, tushar wrote:
> On 03/29/2017 12:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Hm ... I don't see a crash here, but I wonder whether you have parameters
>> set that would cause this query to be run as a parallel query? Because
>> pg_rotate_logfile() is marked as parallel-safe in p
On 03/29/2017 12:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Hm ... I don't see a crash here, but I wonder whether you have parameters
set that would cause this query to be run as a parallel query? Because
pg_rotate_logfile() is marked as parallel-safe in pg_proc, which seems
probably insane.
Well, I am able to see
On 03/29/2017 12:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Hm ... I don't see a crash here,
I am getting this issue only on Linux3.
but I wonder whether you have parameters
set that would cause this query to be run as a parallel query? Because
pg_rotate_logfile() is marked as parallel-safe in pg_proc, which se
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Hm ... I don't see a crash here, but I wonder whether you have parameters
>>> set that would cause this query to be run as a parallel query? Because
>>> pg_rotate_logfi
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Hm ... I don't see a crash here, but I wonder whether you have parameters
>>> set that would cause this query to be run as a parallel query? Because
>>> pg_rotate_logfi
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm ... I don't see a crash here, but I wonder whether you have parameters
>> set that would cause this query to be run as a parallel query? Because
>> pg_rotate_logfile() is marked as parallel-safe in pg_proc, which seems
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> tushar writes:
>> After runinng sqlsmith against latest sources of PG v10 , able to see a
>> crash -
>
> Hm ... I don't see a crash here, but I wonder whether you have parameters
> set that would cause this query to be run as a parallel query?
tushar writes:
> After runinng sqlsmith against latest sources of PG v10 , able to see a
> crash -
Hm ... I don't see a crash here, but I wonder whether you have parameters
set that would cause this query to be run as a parallel query? Because
pg_rotate_logfile() is marked as parallel-safe in
11 matches
Mail list logo