Thank you Craig for explaining in such a detail. I am adding more
information and would see what more I can add,

$ulimit -a
core file size          (blocks, -c) 0

So I assume there to be no core dump file.

If I set 'ulimit -c unlimited' will it generate core dump if there is
another occurrence. Do I need to restart postgres for this to take effect.

Linux distros
-------------------
Linux ip-xx-xx-xx-xx 2.6.35.11-83.9.amzn1.x86_64 #1 SMP Sat Feb 19 23:42:04
UTC 2011 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

I will see if there are queries which I can share.

Regards
Amod

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Craig Ringer <ring...@ringerc.id.au> wrote:

>  On 07/19/2012 12:37 AM, Amod Pandey wrote:
>
> Server stopped due to Segmentation Fault. Server was running successfully
> for an year.
>
> PostgreSQL: 9.0.3
>
> from /var/log/messages
>
> Jul 18 19:00:03 ip-10-136-22-193 kernel: [18643442.660032] postgres[6818]:
> segfault at 170a8c6f ip 000000000044c94d sp 00007fff9fee5b80 error 4 in
> postgres[400000+495000]
>
> from pg log
>
> LOG:  server process (PID 6818) was terminated by signal 11: Segmentation
> fault
> LOG:  terminating any other active server processes
>
> Please suggest if there is a way to find out the issue.
>
>
> Did the crash produce a core file ?
>
> You haven't mentioned what Linux distro or kernel version you're on, and
> defaults vary. Look in your PostgreSQL datadir and see if there are any
> files with "core" in the name.
>
> Unfortunately most Linux distros default to not producing core files.
> Without a core file it'll be nearly impossible because the segfault message
> reported by the kernel only contains the instruction pointer and stack
> pointer. The stack pointer is invalid and useless without a core file, and
> with address space layout randomisation active the instruction pointer
> offsets are all randomised for each execution, so the ip doesn't tell you
> much on ASLR systems either.
>
> If you can show more of the PostgreSQL logs from around the incident that
> would possibly be helpful.
>
> --
> Craig Ringer
>

Reply via email to