Re: [HACKERS] Unixware 714 pthreads

2004-10-29 Thread Bruce Momjian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 19:58:56 -0400 (EDT) > > From: Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > &

Re: [HACKERS] Unixware 714 pthreads

2004-10-29 Thread ohp
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 19:58:56 -0400 (EDT) > From: Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Unixware 714 pthreads > > [EM

Re: [HACKERS] Unixware 714 pthreads

2004-10-28 Thread Bruce Momjian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I agree with all that you say Tom, I'm just asking for some help to debug > this, Now that Larry is a litle off the list, I'm feeling really lonely on > UW. > SCO won't do anything until I come up with a test program that fails. All > my tries did work until then. > > I

Re: [HACKERS] Unixware 714 pthreads

2004-10-28 Thread Kevin Brown
Tom Lane wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Tom Lane wrote: > >> No. Why should the signal handler need re-arming? > > > My impression was that once caught, signal handler for a particular signal > > is reset to SIG-DFL. > > No. If your signal support is POSIX-compatibl

Re: [HACKERS] Unixware 714 pthreads

2004-10-28 Thread ohp
gs like postfix or bind that nether fail. I'm really at lost. Would you/someone help me? Best regards On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Tom Lane wrote: > Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:55:56 -0400 > From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sub

Re: [HACKERS] Unixware 714 pthreads

2004-10-28 Thread Tom Lane
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Tom Lane wrote: >> No. Why should the signal handler need re-arming? > My impression was that once caught, signal handler for a particular signal > is reset to SIG-DFL. No. If your signal support is POSIX-compatible, it should not do that because

Re: [HACKERS] Unixware 714 pthreads

2004-10-28 Thread ohp
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Tom Lane wrote: > Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:11:12 -0400 > From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Unixware 714 pthreads > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > if i do it a second

Re: [HACKERS] Unixware 714 pthreads

2004-10-28 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: if i do it a second time in the same session, blockme() never returns I wonder if handle_sig_alarm is re-armed after being used No. Why should the signal handler need re-arming? or if sleep is used anywhere in the backend. Nope.

Re: [HACKERS] Unixware 714 pthreads

2004-10-28 Thread Tom Lane
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > if i do it a second time in the same session, blockme() never returns > I wonder if handle_sig_alarm is re-armed after being used No. Why should the signal handler need re-arming? > or if sleep is used anywhere in the backend. Nope. regards,

Re: [HACKERS] Unixware 714 pthreads

2004-10-28 Thread ohp
; > TIA > On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:59:17 -0400 (EDT) > > From: Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Unixware 714 pthreads > &

Re: [HACKERS] Unixware 714 pthreads

2004-10-27 Thread ohp
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:53:26 -0400 (EDT) > From: Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Unixware 714 pthreads > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > De

Re: [HACKERS] Unixware 714 pthreads

2004-10-27 Thread Bruce Momjian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Dear Bruce, > > Thanks for your reply, I was desperate I did'nt get one! > > As I said, I'm quite sure there is a bug in pthread library, Before saying > this to SCO, I have to prove it. Postgresql is the way to prove it! > > What I need is to know where to start from

Re: [HACKERS] Unixware 714 pthreads

2004-10-27 Thread ohp
wrote: > Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:59:17 -0400 (EDT) > From: Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Unixware 714 pthreads > > > The only help I can be is that on Unixware (only) the backend is > co

Re: [HACKERS] Unixware 714 pthreads

2004-10-26 Thread Bruce Momjian
The only help I can be is that on Unixware (only) the backend is compiled with threading enabled. This might be showing some thread bugs. --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi every one, > > I need help to debug the problem I

[HACKERS] Unixware 714 pthreads

2004-10-22 Thread ohp
Hi every one, I need help to debug the problem I have on Unixware 714 and beta3. postgresql make check hangs on plpgsql test when compiled with --enable-thread-safty. It does hang on select block_me(); This select should be canceled by the set statement_timeout=1000, instead, the backend is 100%