Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial
Date
Msg-id 20220525012439.pkrfb7zh276jdmyq@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial
Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 2022-05-25 12:45:21 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> A couple of recent isolation test failures reported $SUBJECT.

Was that just on gharial?


> It could be a bug in recent-ish latch refactoring work, though I don't
> know why it would show up twice just recently.

Yea, that's weird.


> Just BTW, that animal has shown signs of a flaky toolchain before[1].
> I know we have quite a lot of museum exhibits in the 'farm, in terms
> of hardare, OS, and tool chain.  In some cases, they're probably just
> forgotten/not on anyone's upgrade radar.  If they've shown signs of
> misbehaving, maybe it's time to figure out if they can be upgraded?
> For example, it'd be nice to be able to rule out problems in GCC 4.6.0
> (that's like running PostgreSQL 9.1.0, in terms of vintage,
> unsupported status, and long list of missing bugfixes from the time
> when it was supported).

Yea. gcc 4.6.0 is pretty ridiculous - the only thing we gain by testing with a
.0 compiler of that vintage is pain. Could it be upgraded?


TBH, I think we should just desupport HPUX. It's makework to support it at
this point. 11.31 v3 is about to be old enough to drink in quite a few
countries...

Greetings,

Andres Freund



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: PG15 beta1 sort performance regression due to Generation context change
Next
From: Japin Li
Date:
Subject: Re: Shmem queue is not flushed if receiver is not yet attached