Hi, On 2021-08-09 13:54:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > On 2021-08-09 13:43:03 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 1:30 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> > >> wrote: > > How common is to get a failure? I know I've run tests under > > EXEC_BACKEND and not seen any failures. Not many runs though. > > > I get check-world failures in about 1/2-1/3 of the runs, and a plain check > > fails in maybe 1/4 of the cases. It's pretty annoying because it often isn't > > trivial to distinguish whether I've broken something or whether it's > > randomization related... > > I don't have numbers, but I do know that on Linux EXEC_BACKEND builds fail > often enough to be annoying if you don't disable ASLR. If we can do > something not-too-invasive about that, it'd be great.
I now not sure if personality(NO_RANDOMIZE) in postmaster is actually sufficient. It does seem to drastically reduce the frequency of issues, but there's still conceivable failures where postmaster's layout would class with the non-randomized children - obviously personality(NO_RANDOMIZE) cannot retroactively change the layout of the already running binary. So maybe we should put it into pg_ctl? Greetings, Andres Freund
