Re: [HACKERS] failed runcheck

2000-10-25 Thread Tom Lane
"Ross J. Reedstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Well, you clearly don't want to be fooled by temp relations. I was >> sorta visualizing a check based on relation OIDs instead of names... > Well, when I did a test implementation of OID filenames, lo these many > moons ago, I hacked around this

Re: [HACKERS] failed runcheck

2000-10-25 Thread Patrick Welche
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 10:26:39AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Could you dig into it a little further and try to determine where the > NULL is coming from? All clear now! (I did do another cvs update in the meantime, but either way, I can't now repeat the previously repeatable core dump) Cheers,

Re: [HACKERS] failed runcheck

2000-10-25 Thread Ross J. Reedstrom
On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 01:26:07AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Next question: why is RelationInitLockInfo using > >> RelationGetPhysicalRelationName to get the input data for > >> IsSharedSystemRelationName --- shouldn't that be a test on logical > >> re

Re: [HACKERS] failed runcheck

2000-10-23 Thread Tom Lane
Patrick Welche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 01:48:39PM -0700, Vadim Mikheev wrote: >> Did you run make distclean? I've run regtests before committing changes. > Just made sure - different computer - fresh cvs update/distclean/configure/make > same coredump > #1 0x807f4b

Re: [HACKERS] failed runcheck

2000-10-23 Thread Patrick Welche
On Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 01:48:39PM -0700, Vadim Mikheev wrote: > Did you run make distclean? I've run regtests before committing changes. Just made sure - different computer - fresh cvs update/distclean/configure/make cd src/test/regress gmake clean gmake all gmake runcheck same coredump #1 0x

Re: [HACKERS] failed runcheck

2000-10-22 Thread Vadim Mikheev
Did you run make distclean? I've run regtests before committing changes. Vadim - Original Message - From: "Patrick Welche" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 10:17 AM Subject: [HACKERS] failed runcheck > First a core dump which can be relieved

Re: [HACKERS] failed runcheck

2000-10-21 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Next question: why is RelationInitLockInfo using >> RelationGetPhysicalRelationName to get the input data for >> IsSharedSystemRelationName --- shouldn't that be a test on logical >> relation name? Or maybe the entire premise of >> IsSharedSystemRelati

Re: [HACKERS] failed runcheck

2000-10-21 Thread Bruce Momjian
> Patrick Welche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > [ core dump due to ] > > #0 IsSystemRelationName (relname=0x0) at catalog.c:176 > > #1 0x807ed9a in IsSharedSystemRelationName (relname=0x0) at catalog.c:197 > > #2 0x80e9272 in RelationInitLockInfo (relation=0x82af018) at lmgr.c:119 > > #3 0x81

Re: [HACKERS] failed runcheck

2000-10-21 Thread Tom Lane
Patrick Welche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [ core dump due to ] > #0 IsSystemRelationName (relname=0x0) at catalog.c:176 > #1 0x807ed9a in IsSharedSystemRelationName (relname=0x0) at catalog.c:197 > #2 0x80e9272 in RelationInitLockInfo (relation=0x82af018) at lmgr.c:119 > #3 0x81202ef in for

Re: [HACKERS] failed runcheck

2000-10-21 Thread Bruce Momjian
Applied > First a core dump which can be relieved by: > > Index: catalog.c > === > RCS file: /home/projects/pgsql/cvsroot/pgsql/src/backend/catalog/catalog.c,v > retrieving revision 1.34 > diff -c -u -r1.34 catalog.c > --- catalog.c