Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([98.129.198.125]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1T5zqC-0001ap-OV; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:58:56 +0000 Received: from momjian.us ([72.94.173.45]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1T5zqA-0003QH-D5; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:58:56 +0000 Received: from bruce by momjian.us with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1T5zq8-0004tZ-PG; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 09:58:52 -0400 Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 09:58:52 -0400 From: Bruce Momjian To: David Schnur Cc: Tom Lane , pgsql-admin@postgresql.org, pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Repeatable crash in pg_dump (with -d2 info) Message-ID: <20120827135852.GG11088@momjian.us> References: <28131.1322067903@sss.pgh.pa.us> <346.1322071656@sss.pgh.pa.us> <29791.1322528434@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) X-Archive-Number: 201208/199 X-Sequence-Number: 33923 On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 04:46:50PM -0500, David Schnur wrote: > I finally had time to test this further on a variety of systems, and was unable > to reproduce on any non-Windows platform. The dump even works fine on Windows > XP; just not Windows 7. > > This prompted me to do a little more research, and this time I found this > thread from Sept. 2011: > > http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/ > BUG-6233-pg-dump-hangs-with-Access-Violation-C0000005-td4851598.html > > From Tom Lane in the above thread: > > > Hmm. I can see how that would happen if you're using one of the Windows > environments wherein malloc's done inside libpq have to be free'd inside > libpq. (The PQExpBuffer support code is in libpq...) > > > > However, the flaw in that explanation is that it would basically mean > pg_dump doesn't work at all on Windows, at least not if you have any > user-defined functions, and probably some other cases too because there > seem to be multiple instances of the dubious coding. It's a bit hard to > believe that nobody's noticed that before. > > > This appears to describe exactly the issue I'm encountering, and my build is in > fact linked against the static runtime. I guess the reason this hasn't come up > sooner is because most Windows users either use the 'official' binaries rather > than compiling from source, or link against the dynamic runtime. > > Is this something I could expect to be fixed in the near future, or is it > enough of an edge case that I should come up with some solution or work-around > on my own? Thanks, Late reply, but I don't see any way we could fix this easily. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +