Re: [HACKERS] We've broken something in error recovery

2010-01-23 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: > #4 0x4e85b4 in ExceptionalCondition ( > conditionName=0x1ac4ac "!(nestLevel > 0 && nestLevel <= GUCNestLevel)", > errorType=0x1abf44 "FailedAssertion", fileName=0x1abee4 "guc.c", > lineNumber=3907) at assert.c:57 > #5 0x501f48 in AtEOXact_GUC (isCommit=-86 'ª', nestLevel=

Re: [HACKERS] We've broken something in error recovery

2010-01-23 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> #5 0x501f48 in AtEOXact_GUC (isCommit=-86 'ª', nestLevel=84) at guc.c:3907 > This looks like maybe a corrupted stack - the args to AtEOXact_GUC at > that location in xact.c are hardwired. No, that's just a fairly typical behavior of debugging with -O

Re: [HACKERS] We've broken something in error recovery

2010-01-23 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: #4 0x4e85b4 in ExceptionalCondition ( conditionName=0x1ac4ac "!(nestLevel > 0 && nestLevel <= GUCNestLevel)", errorType=0x1abf44 "FailedAssertion", fileName=0x1abee4 "guc.c", lineNumber=3907) at assert.c:57 #5 0x501f48 in AtEOXact_GUC (isCommit=-86 'ª', nestLeve

[HACKERS] We've broken something in error recovery

2010-01-23 Thread Tom Lane
In a somewhat misguided attempt to test something else, I did this in CVS HEAD: do $$begin for i in 1 .. 1 loop execute 'create table t' || i::text || ' (f1 int primary key)'; end loop; end$$; This ran for awhile and then ran out of lock table space,