On 2018-10-23 13:54:31 +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > Hello Tom & Amit, > > > > > Both animals use gcc experimental versions, which may rather underline a > > > > new bug in gcc head rather than an existing issue in pg. Or not. > > > > > It is possible, but what could be the possible theory? > > > > It seems like the two feasible theories are (1) gcc bug, or (2) buffer > > leak that only occurs in very narrow circumstances, perhaps from a race > > condition. Given that the hash index code hasn't changed meaningfully > > in several months, I thought (1) seemed more probable. > > Yep, that is my thought as well.
FWIW, my animal 'serinus', which runs debian's gcc-snapshot shows the same problem: https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=serinus&dt=2018-10-22%2006%3A34%3A02 So it seems much more likely to be 1). > The problem is that this kind of issue is not simple to wrap-up as a gcc bug > report, unlike other earlier instances that I forwarded to clang & gcc dev > teams. > > I'm in favor in waiting before trying to report it, to check whether the > probable underlying gcc problem is detected, reported by someone else, and > fixed in gcc head. If it persists, then we'll see. I suspect the easiest thing to narrow it down would be to bisect the problem in gcc :( Greetings, Andres Freund
