Re: [BUGS] segfault at aset.c:539

2003-07-14 Thread Tom Lane
Tomas Szepe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > (BTW, it seems the bug can't be triggered on Linux/sparc32). You'd be less likely to see it on a machine where MAXALIGN is 8, since there would be more pad bytes on the average ... but depending on the string length fed to to_ascii(), I think it could be m

Re: [BUGS] segfault at aset.c:539

2003-07-14 Thread Tomas Szepe
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > I'm getting an ugly non-deterministic segfault in postmaster > > at aset.c:539. > > ... > > Anyone with a fix? :) > > Yech. This is the *second* buffer-overrun bug we've found in to_ascii() > in the last couple months. I've now taken a close look at that whole > file a

Re: [BUGS] segfault at aset.c:539

2003-07-14 Thread Tom Lane
Tomas Szepe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm getting an ugly non-deterministic segfault in postmaster > at aset.c:539. > ... > Anyone with a fix? :) Yech. This is the *second* buffer-overrun bug we've found in to_ascii() in the last couple months. I've now taken a close look at that whole file

Re: [BUGS] segfault at aset.c:539

2003-07-14 Thread Tomas Szepe
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > The resolution of this bug is of critical importance to me, will > > somebody help? > > Postgres version? Platform? Ouch, sorry. PostgreSQL 7.3.3 on x86 Linux. -- Tomas Szepe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---(end of broadcast)-

Re: [BUGS] segfault at aset.c:539

2003-07-14 Thread Tom Lane
Tomas Szepe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The resolution of this bug is of critical importance to me, will > somebody help? Postgres version? Platform? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is yo