From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>,
        "Adam,
    Etienne (Nokia-TECH/Issy Les Moulineaux)" <etienne.adam@nokia.com>,
        PostgreSQL Bugs <pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org>,
        "Duquesne,
    Pierre (Nokia-TECH/Issy Les Moulineaux)" <pierre.duquesne@nokia.com>,
        pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90
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>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
	message dated "Thu, 17 Aug 2017 14:14:16 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <18649.1502995942.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 14:52:22 -0400
Message-ID: <18650.1502995942@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-bugs-owner@postgresql.org

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