> On Apr 8, 2017, at 7:35 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Mark Dilger <hornschnorter@gmail.com> writes:
>> This is very near where the original crash reported in this thread was crashing, probably only
>> different due to the extra lines of Assert that were added. Am I missing some portion of the
>> fix that you are testing? I have only applied the patch that Tom included in the previous email.
>
> No, that was the whole patch --- but did you do a full "make clean" and
> rebuild? The patch changed NodeTag numbers which would affect the whole
> tree.
I had trouble applying your patch using
mark$ patch -p 1 < patch
patching file src/backend/nodes/bitmapset.c
Hunk #1 FAILED at 115.
Hunk #2 FAILED at 146.
Hunk #3 FAILED at 190.
Hunk #4 FAILED at 205.
Hunk #5 FAILED at 229.
Hunk #6 FAILED at 265.
Hunk #7 FAILED at 298.
Hunk #8 FAILED at 324.
Hunk #9 FAILED at 364.
Hunk #10 FAILED at 444.
Hunk #11 FAILED at 463.
Hunk #12 FAILED at 488.
Hunk #13 FAILED at 517.
Hunk #14 FAILED at 554.
Hunk #15 FAILED at 598.
Hunk #16 FAILED at 635.
Hunk #17 FAILED at 665.
Hunk #18 FAILED at 694.
Hunk #19 FAILED at 732.
Hunk #20 FAILED at 770.
Hunk #21 FAILED at 789.
Hunk #22 FAILED at 825.
Hunk #23 FAILED at 853.
Hunk #24 FAILED at 878.
Hunk #25 FAILED at 927.
Hunk #26 FAILED at 981.
Hunk #27 FAILED at 1027.
27 out of 27 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/backend/nodes/bitmapset.c.rej
patching file src/include/nodes/bitmapset.h
Hunk #1 FAILED at 20.
Hunk #2 FAILED at 38.
2 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/include/nodes/bitmapset.h.rej
patching file src/include/nodes/nodes.h
Hunk #1 FAILED at 291.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/include/nodes/nodes.h.rej
So I did the patching manually against my copy of the current master,
aba696d1af9a267eee85d69845c3cdeccf788525, and then ran:
make distclean; ./configure --enable-cassert --enable-tap-tests --enable-depend && make -j4 && make check-world
I am attaching my patch, which I admit on closer inspection differs from yours, but not
in any way I can tell is relevant:
I'm going to pull completely fresh sources and reapply and retest, though you are welcome
to review my patch while I do that.
mark
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
