Re: [HACKERS] Buildfarm failure and dubious coding in predicate.c - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Buildfarm failure and dubious coding in predicate.c
Date
Msg-id 1376.1500924241@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Buildfarm failure and dubious coding in predicate.c  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Ahh, I think I see it.  This is an EXEC_BACKEND build farm animal.
> Theory: After the backend we see had removed the scratch entry and
> before it had restored it, another backend started up and ran
> InitPredicateLocks(), which inserted a new scratch entry without
> interlocking.

Ouch.  Yes, I think you're probably right.  It needs to skip that if
IsUnderPostmaster.  Seems like there ought to be an Assert(!found)
there, too.  And I don't think I entirely like the fact that there's
no assertions about the found/not found cases below, either.

Will fix, unless you're already on it?
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Issue with circular references in VIEW
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Buildfarm failure and dubious coding in predicate.c