Seawasp should turn green on its next run.
It did!
--
Fabien.
Hello Thomas,
Seawasp should turn green on its next run.
Hopefully.
It is not scheduled very soon because Tom complained about the induced
noise in one buildfarm report, so I put the check to once a week.
I changed it to start a run in a few minutes. I've rescheduled to once a
day after
On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 11:57 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> If that's an accurate characterization of the tradeoff, I have little
> difficulty in voting for #2. A crash is strictly worse than a memory
> leak. Besides which, I've heard little indication that they might
> revert.
Agreed.
On Mon, Jun 21,
Hi,
On 2021-06-20 19:56:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Munro writes:
> > Looking at their release schedule on https://llvm.org/, I see we have
> > a gamble to make. They currently plan to cut RC1 at the end of July,
> > and to release in late September (every second LLVM major release
> > co
On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 11:01 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2021-06-19 10:12:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Is a compile-time conditional really going to be reliable? See nearby
> > arguments about compile-time vs run-time checks for libpq features.
> > It's not clear to me how tightly LLVM binds i
Thomas Munro writes:
> Looking at their release schedule on https://llvm.org/, I see we have
> a gamble to make. They currently plan to cut RC1 at the end of July,
> and to release in late September (every second LLVM major release
> coincides approximately with a PG major release). Option 1: wa
On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 10:59 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> I think this should be part of the earlier loop? Once
> LLVMOrcAbsoluteSymbols() is called that owns the reference, so there
> doesn't seem to be a reason to increase the refcount only later?
Right, that makes sense. Here's a patch like tha
Hi,
On 2021-06-19 10:12:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Is a compile-time conditional really going to be reliable? See nearby
> arguments about compile-time vs run-time checks for libpq features.
> It's not clear to me how tightly LLVM binds its headers and running
> code.
It should be fine (and if
Hi,
On 2021-06-19 17:07:51 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 12:25 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2021-05-21 15:57:01 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > I found the LLVM commit to blame
> > > (c8fc5e3ba942057d6c4cdcd1faeae69a28e7b671).
> > > Contacting the author and reading th
Thomas Munro writes:
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 5:07 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
>> if (error != LLVMErrorSuccess)
>> LLVMOrcDisposeMaterializationUnit(mu);
>>
>> +#if LLVM_VERSION_MAJOR > 12
>> + for (int i = 0; i < LookupSetSize; i++)
>> + LLVMOrcRetainSymbolStringPoolEntry(symbo
On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 5:07 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> if (error != LLVMErrorSuccess)
> LLVMOrcDisposeMaterializationUnit(mu);
>
> +#if LLVM_VERSION_MAJOR > 12
> + for (int i = 0; i < LookupSetSize; i++)
> + LLVMOrcRetainSymbolStringPoolEntry(symbols[i].N
On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 12:25 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2021-05-21 15:57:01 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I found the LLVM commit to blame (c8fc5e3ba942057d6c4cdcd1faeae69a28e7b671).
> > Contacting the author and reading the change to see if I can spit the
> > issue myself.
>
> Hrmpf. It's a
We know that seawasp was okay as of
configure: using compiler=clang version 13.0.0
(https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project.git
f22d3813850f9e87c5204df6844a93b8c5db7730)
and not okay as of
configure: using compiler=clang version 13.0.0
(https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project.git
0e8f5e4a686483
Hi,
On 2021-05-21 15:57:01 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> I found the LLVM commit to blame (c8fc5e3ba942057d6c4cdcd1faeae69a28e7b671).
> Contacting the author and reading the change to see if I can spit the
> issue myself.
Hrmpf. It's a silent API breakage. The author intended to email us about
it
Hi,
On 2021-05-21 18:18:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > Interesting. I tried this with a slightly older LLVM checkout
> > (6f4f0afaa8ae), from 2021-04-20, contrib/ltree tests run without an
> > issue, even if I force everything to be jitted+inlined+optimized. The
> > git has
Hi,
On 2021-05-21 14:58:38 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Interesting. I tried this with a slightly older LLVM checkout
> (6f4f0afaa8ae), from 2021-04-20, contrib/ltree tests run without an
> issue, even if I force everything to be jitted+inlined+optimized. The
> git hash in the package version ind
Andres Freund writes:
> Interesting. I tried this with a slightly older LLVM checkout
> (6f4f0afaa8ae), from 2021-04-20, contrib/ltree tests run without an
> issue, even if I force everything to be jitted+inlined+optimized. The
> git hash in the package version indicates the commit is from
> 2021-
Hi,
On 2021-05-21 21:37:22 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> I installed Clang/LLVM version
> "1:13~++20210520071732+02f2d739e074-1~exp1~20210520052519.57" from
> https://apt.llvm.org/ on a Debian buster box, and I saw that
> contrib/ltree's test fail about half the time with a range of weird
> and won
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 5:02 AM Fabien COELHO wrote:
> It seems that the upload of the valgrind run (many hours…) failed on "413
> request entity too large", and everything seems to have been cleaned
> despite the "--keepall" I think I put when I started the run.
I installed Clang/LLVM version
"1
The issue is non-deterministically triggered in contrib checks, either in
int or ltree, but not elsewhere. This suggests issues specific to these
modules, or triggered by these modules. Hmmm…
Hmm, yeah. A couple of different ways that ltreetest fails without crashing:
https://buildfarm.postg
On Sat, May 15, 2021 at 6:41 PM Fabien COELHO wrote:
> The issue is non-deterministically triggered in contrib checks, either in
> int or ltree, but not elsewhere. This suggests issues specific to these
> modules, or triggered by these modules. Hmmm…
Hmm, yeah. A couple of different ways that lt
Hello Andres,
It finally failed with a core on 8f72bba, in llvm_shutdown, AFAIKS in a
free while doing malloc-related housekeeping.
My guess is that there is an actual memory corruption somewhere. It is
unobvious whether it is in bleeding-edge llvm or bleeding-edge postgres
though.
The is
Possibly I have just added "ulimit -c unlimited" in the script, we should see
the effect on next round.
for def5b065 it ended on on the contrib ltree test:
2021-05-12 20:12:52.528 CEST [3042602:410] pg_regress/ltree LOG:
disconnection: session time: 0:00:13.426 user=buildfarm
database=co
Hello Andres,p
Unless perhaps the hard rlimit for -C is set? ulimit -c -H should show
that.
Possibly I have just added "ulimit -c unlimited" in the script, we should
see the effect on next round.
If it's the hard limit that won't help, because the hard limit can only
be increased by a priv
On 2021-05-11 10:22:02 +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> > On 2021-05-11 12:16:44 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > > OK we got the SIGABRT this time, but still no backtrace. If the
> > > kernel's core_pattern is "core", gdb is installed, then considering
> > > that the buildfarm core_file_glob is "co
On 2021-05-11 12:16:44 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
OK we got the SIGABRT this time, but still no backtrace. If the
kernel's core_pattern is "core", gdb is installed, then considering
that the buildfarm core_file_glob is "core*" and the script version is
recent (REL_12), then I'm out of ideas.
On 2021-05-11 12:16:44 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> OK we got the SIGABRT this time, but still no backtrace. If the
> kernel's core_pattern is "core", gdb is installed, then considering
> that the buildfarm core_file_glob is "core*" and the script version is
> recent (REL_12), then I'm out of idea
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 11:21 PM Fabien COELHO wrote:
> > And of course this time it succeeded :-)
>
> Hmmm. ISTM that failures are on and off every few attempts.
OK we got the SIGABRT this time, but still no backtrace. If the
kernel's core_pattern is "core", gdb is installed, then considering
t
And of course this time it succeeded :-)
Hmmm. ISTM that failures are on and off every few attempts.
Just by the way, I noticed it takes ~40 minutes to compile. Is there
a reason you don't install ccache and set eg CC="ccache
/path/to/clang", CXX="ccache /path/to/clang++", CLANG="ccache
/p
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 9:30 PM Fabien COELHO wrote:
> I forced-removed apport (which meant removing xserver-xorg). Let's see
> whether the reports are better or whether I break something.
And of course this time it succeeded :-)
Just by the way, I noticed it takes ~40 minutes to compile. Is th
If you don't care about Ubuntu "apport" on this system (something for
sending crash/bug reports to developers with a GUI), you could
uninstall it (otherwise it overwrites the core_pattern every time it
restarts, no matter what you write in your sysctl.conf, apparently),
and then sudo sysctl -w
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 6:59 PM Fabien COELHO wrote:
> > Is gdb installed, and are core files being dumped by that SIGABRT, and
> > are they using the default name (/proc/sys/kernel/core_pattern = core),
> > which the BF can find with the value it's using, namely 'core_file_glob'
> > => 'core*'?
>
Hello Thomas,
Since seawasp's bleeding-edge clang moved to "20210226", it failed
every run except 4, and a couple of days ago it moved to "20210508"
and it's still broken.
Indeed I have noticed that there is indeed an issue, but the investigation
is not very high on my current too deep pg-u
33 matches
Mail list logo
