On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 15:36:18 -0600
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Just to clarify, did it show the assert failure, the context switch
> storm, or both?
I didn't try for the assert after the patch. I was developing the test when I
ran across the assert problem. It should trigger t
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 02:09:35PM -0700, Robert Creager wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:09:58 -0600
> "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 08:46:27PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > > On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > > For all the talk about "could
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:09:58 -0600
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 08:46:27PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > For all the talk about "couldn't it be part of regression", I haven't seen
> > anyone submit a patch tha
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 08:46:27PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> For all the talk about "couldn't it be part of regression", I haven't seen
> anyone submit a patch that would test for it ... since I believe both you
> and Tom have both stated that "for
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 05:26:25PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Well, for things like race conditions I don't know that you can create
reproducable test cases. My point was that this bug was exposed by
databases with workloads that involved very high tran
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 05:26:25PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >Well, for things like race conditions I don't know that you can create
> >reproducable test cases. My point was that this bug was exposed by
> >databases with workloads that involved very high transaction rates. I
> >know in the cas
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 04:35:10PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Could something like that be added to regression, or maybe as a seperate
test case for the buildfarm?
If you don't have a self-contained, reproducible test
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 04:35:10PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Could something like that be added to regression, or maybe as a seperate
> > test case for the buildfarm?
>
> If you don't have a self-contained, reproducible test case, it's a bit
> pointles
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Could something like that be added to regression, or maybe as a seperate
> test case for the buildfarm?
If you don't have a self-contained, reproducible test case, it's a bit
pointless to suggest adding the nonexistent test case to the regression
suite.
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:45:21PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Creager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Ran with both for an hour with no problem, where I could produce the ASSERT
> > failure within minutes for the non patched version.
>
> Great. I'll go ahead and commit the smaller fix into H
Robert Creager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ran with both for an hour with no problem, where I could produce the ASSERT
> failure within minutes for the non patched version.
Great. I'll go ahead and commit the smaller fix into HEAD and the back
branches, and hold the larger fix for 8.2.
It's cu
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 15:19:44 -0500
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Creager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(shared->page_number[slotno] == pageno &&
> > shared->page_status[slotno] == SLRU_PAGE_READ_IN_PROGRESS)", File: "slru.c",
> > Line: 309)
>
> http://arch
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 15:37:05 -0500
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Creager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I can reproduce very quickly. Looks like I should try the patch in 248
> > first to see if it fixes 8.1RC1?
>
> Excellent. Yes, the second patch is higher priority, but please
Robert Creager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(shared->page_number[slotno] == pageno &&
> shared->page_status[slotno] == SLRU_PAGE_READ_IN_PROGRESS)", File: "slru.c",
> Line: 309)
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-10/msg01385.php
If you can reproduce the fai
Hey all,
While trying to get a reproducible test case for my CS storm problem (see
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-10/msg00585.php), I upgraded
to 8.1RC1 and encountered the following assert:
TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(shared->page_number[slotno] == pageno &&
shared->page_status[
15 matches
Mail list logo
