Re: Updating multiple bool values crashes backend - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From Sean Kelly
Subject Re: Updating multiple bool values crashes backend
Date
Msg-id 20001026132347.899DA556F@random.ncl.ac.uk
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Updating multiple bool values crashes backend  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Updating multiple bool values crashes backend
List pgsql-bugs
On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 14:14:22 -0400, Tom Lane said:

>  >     No core there ... any other suggestions?
>
>  You probably started the postmaster with a ulimit setting that prevents
>  coredumps (ulimit -c 0 or something like that, see your ulimit man page).
>  On some Unixen, this ulimit setting is the default for anything started
>  from a system boot script.  Restart the postmaster with ulimit -c
>  unlimited, either by starting it by hand or adding a ulimit call to the
>  boot script.  Then reproduce the crash to get a core file.

    Ok, I sorted that ... I now have a 2Mb core file.  Can you
explain how to 'backtrace' it with gdb ... I'm not really a developer
and haven't played with gdb much ... ever ...  I've stuck the core
file at http://www.randomfx.net/core.html if you need it.

    As someone suggested, I 'pg_dump'ed the database, 'dropdb'ed
and 'createdb'ed it, before reloading.    After reloading the results
were the same.    I tried this on both the machines running 7.0.2 with
the same results.

>  > With respect to GCC errors, '11' normally indicates a hardware
>  > problem
>
>  Uh, whoever told you that?  Signal 11 is SIGSEGV on most Unixen,
>  and that just means the program tried to dereference an invalid
>  pointer.  Almost certainly, we're looking at some software bug
>  here, not a hardware failure.

    One example can be found on http://www.bitwizard.nl/sig11/

    Thanks for your time and help,

--
Sean Kelly <S.Kelly@ncl.ac.uk>
"If 99% is good enough, then gravity will not work for 14 minutes
 every day."

pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: The Hermit Hacker
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_log
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_log