Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h1yuN-0006IC-Cw for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2019 19:42:23 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h1yuM-00067u-7A for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2019 19:42:22 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h1ytY-000147-8f for pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2019 19:41:32 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h1ytV-0003m6-Np for pgsql-admin@postgresql.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2019 19:41:31 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x27JepEd027237; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 14:40:52 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Andrew Gierth cc: Peter , pgsql-admin@postgresql.org, pgsql@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Upgrade 10.5->10.6 : db crash BUS ERROR (sig 10), reproducible In-reply-to: <874l8ed31p.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk> References: <20190307140421.GA8362@gate.oper.dinoex.org> <874l8ed31p.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk> Comments: In-reply-to Andrew Gierth message dated "Thu, 07 Mar 2019 17:20:42 +0000" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <27235.1551987651.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2019 14:40:51 -0500 Message-ID: <27236.1551987651@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Andrew Gierth writes: > "Peter" == Peter writes: > Peter> What the hell does that mean? Does it concern the build process? > Peter> Or the operation? Why does it only concern the Clang? And what > Peter> is SSE2 concerned with? > It concerns only overflow checks in floating-point computations. It seems pretty unlikely that that'd have anything to do with a bus-error failure, anyway. But this report contains far too little information to let anyone do anything but speculate. regards, tom lane