> Hmm, this one smells like c203d6cf81b4 -- haven't seen any fixes for
> that one. Can you share more details on this? I think the failing
> update is on table with oid=557732818, but I might be wrong.
That's exactly the table, public.schedulecard.
We issue an UPDATE changing some of its columns. E.g.,
UPDATE public.schedulecard SET ext_ident=null,
rotates=false,period_num=1,period_day=2 WHERE id=3817
lets the server crash. See the main log:
2018-11-06 17:29:40.031 CET [30202] LOG: server process (PID 29879) was
terminated by signal 11: Segmentation fault
2018-11-06 17:29:40.031 CET [30202] DETAIL: Failed process was running:
UPDATE public.schedulecard SET ext_ident=null,
rotates=false,period_num=1,period_day=2 WHERE id=3817;
select * from schedulecard where id = 3817
2018-11-06 17:29:40.031 CET [30202] LOG: terminating any other active
server processes
The query is reproducible - it always lets the server segfault. It
crashes on multiple rows on that table -- actually, I haven't found any
non-failing row yet.
I thought triggers should be suspected. However, even when all the three
triggers have been disabled (ALTER TABLE DISABLE TRIGGER), the UPDATE
crashed the server.
What else could I try?
Regards,
Ondřej Bouda
Dne 6.11.2018 v 19:52 Alvaro Herrera napsal(a):
> On 2018-Nov-06, Ondřej Bouda wrote:
>
>> So we dumped and restored all our databases. After that, the crash on DELETE
>> never occurred (before, it was several times a day). However, the crash on
>> UPDATE still occurs on specific rows. We are quite certain no ALTER TABLE
>> statement was executed on the table after the restore.
>> There are two AFTER INSERT OR UPDATE constraint triggers and one BEFORE
>> INSERT OR UPDATE trigger on the table, all of which are implemented in
>> plpgsql. Multiple physical servers, on separate databases with identical
>> schema, crash on the same type of UPDATE query (different just in concrete
>> values to be updated). The same code worked perfectly on 10.x.
>>
>> See the attached backtrace below. Can we do something else to catch the bug?
>> Or can we hope for this bug to be already fixed and released in the upcoming
>> version?
>
> Hmm, this one smells like c203d6cf81b4 -- haven't seen any fixes for
> that one. Can you share more details on this? I think the failing
> update is on table with oid=557732818, but I might be wrong.
>
