Re: min_safe_lsn column in pg_replication_slots view - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: min_safe_lsn column in pg_replication_slots view
Date
Msg-id 1738875.1594250690@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: min_safe_lsn column in pg_replication_slots view  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: min_safe_lsn column in pg_replication_slots view
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2020-Jul-08, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The buildfarm's sparc64 members seem unhappy with this.

> Hmm.  Some of them are, yeah, but it's not universal.  For example
> mussurana and ibisbill are not showing failures.

Ah, right, I was thinking they hadn't run since this commit, but they
have.

> Anyway the error is pretty strange: only GetWALAvailability is showing a
> problem, but the size calculation in the view function def is returning
> a negative number, as expected.

We've previously noted what seem to be compiler optimization bugs on
both sparc32 and sparc64; the latest thread about that is
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/f28f842d-e82b-4e30-a81a-2a1f9fa4a8e1%40www.fastmail.com

This is looking uncomfortably like the same thing.  Tom, could you
experiment with different -O levels on those animals?

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: Is this a bug in pg_current_logfile() on Windows?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Is this a bug in pg_current_logfile() on Windows?