Re: [HACKERS] 9.4 failure on skink in _bt_newroot/XLogCheckBuffer

2016-05-22 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund writes: > On 2016-05-21 17:18:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> What remains unclear is how come this only fails once in a blue moon. >> Seems like any valgrind run of the regression tests should have caught it. > Looks like a timing issue. Yeah, I came to the same conclusion after awhi

Re: [HACKERS] 9.4 failure on skink in _bt_newroot/XLogCheckBuffer

2016-05-22 Thread Andres Freund
Hi tom, On 2016-05-21 17:18:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > The valgrind animal just reported a large object related failure on 9.4: > > The proximate cause seems to be that _bt_newroot isn't bothering to > fill the buffer_std field here: > > /* Make a full-p

Re: [HACKERS] 9.4 failure on skink in _bt_newroot/XLogCheckBuffer

2016-05-21 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund writes: > The valgrind animal just reported a large object related failure on 9.4: The proximate cause seems to be that _bt_newroot isn't bothering to fill the buffer_std field here: /* Make a full-page image of the left child if needed */ rdata[2].d

[HACKERS] 9.4 failure on skink in _bt_newroot/XLogCheckBuffer

2016-05-21 Thread Andres Freund
The valgrind animal just reported a large object related failure on 9.4: http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=skink&dt=2016-05-19%2006%3A23%3A05 ==9952== VALGRINDERROR-BEGIN ==9952== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s) ==9952==at 0x4DC6D3: XLogCheckBuffer (