pg.ddx.io  pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Cc: Adam, Etienne (Nokia-TECH/Issy Les Moulineaux) <etienne.adam@nokia.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Bugs <pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org>
Cc: Duquesne, Pierre (Nokia-TECH/Issy Les Moulineaux) <pierre.duquesne@nokia.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 14:52:22 -0400
Message-ID: <18650.1502995942@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+Tgmob+S=c=wqaJXNgKT2VhhAVRYFz=MagoTDWb0MueM1xBxg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL7LBcYM-32B=n_-h_wPHWiML26UvqP3b_WxD7MgXgOwmxvTFw@mail.gmail.com>
	<11673.1502467154@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<20170815025243.GA3986579@rfd.leadboat.com>
	<CAA4eK1KeQWZOoDmDmGMwuqzPW9JhRS+ditQVFdAfGjNmMZzqMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+TgmoaWPtfdcZjg+dqLephgKaG7kF8DEdvB870A2t4cUh5x+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<26053.1502804769@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CAA4eK1J_dRv+pGt2bquwmwd_K9+Nght2=tbAc3uUzCinJTMmLg@mail.gmail.com>
	<2941.1502979564@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CAA4eK1KeGhogrkO1JWo=WnvEHm_i9tz6-Gt65zELB1hi=P28Hw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAA4eK1+qD0yfh-iNDKrM7=qMxPOd2KkCZRTX+uxYsDMn0RBwUQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<28782.1502992247@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<29467.1502993219@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CA+Tgmob+S=c=wqaJXNgKT2VhhAVRYFz=MagoTDWb0MueM1xBxg@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-bugs>

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Nope, spoke too soon.  See buildfarm.

> Whoa, that's not good.

Ah-hah, I see my dromedary box is one of the ones failing, so I'll
have a look there.  I can't reproduce it on my other machines.

I'm a bit suspicious that it's got something to do with getting
a different number of workers during restart.  Whether that's
the issue or not, though, it sure seems like a rescan leaks an
unpleasantly large amount of memory.  I wonder if we shouldn't
refactor this so that the per-reader structs can be reused.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs



view thread (44+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <18650.1502995942@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../18650.1502995942@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/18650.1502995942@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
  Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, robertmhaas@gmail.com, amit.kapila16@gmail.com, noah@leadboat.com, etienne.adam@nokia.com, pierre.duquesne@nokia.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90
  In-Reply-To: <18650.1502995942@sss.pgh.pa.us>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox