Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ebuMr-0007ei-Mp for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 20:31:29 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ebuMq-00085R-Pk for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 20:31:28 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ebuMq-00085F-JH for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 20:31:28 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ebuMn-000864-E0 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 20:31:28 +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 w0HKVMRn004978; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 15:31:22 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Peter Geoghegan cc: Aleksandr Parfenov , PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: PostgreSQL crashes with SIGSEGV In-reply-to: References: <1512661638.9720.34.camel@oopsware.de> <151608914608.25640.2144132915573008595.pgcf@coridan.postgresql.org> <14267.1516216998@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Peter Geoghegan message dated "Wed, 17 Jan 2018 12:19:50 -0800" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <4976.1516221082.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 15:31:22 -0500 Message-ID: <4977.1516221082@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Peter Geoghegan writes: > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I don't feel particularly comfortable committing a patch that >> was clearly labeled as a rushed draft by its author. >> Peter, where do you stand on this work? > I would like to take another pass over > WIP-tuplesort-memcontext-fix.patch, to be on the safe side. I'm > currently up to my neck in parallel CREATE INDEX work, though, and > would prefer to avoid context switching for a week or two, if > possible. How time sensitive do you think this is? Probably not very. It'd be nice to have it done by the next minor releases, ie before 5-Feb ... but given that these bugs are years old, missing that deadline would not be catastrophic. > I'm not sure whether or not we should also apply this > still-to-be-written 9.5 patch to 9.4 and 9.3, since those versions > don't have grouping sets, and so cannot crash. ISTM that we should > leave them alone, since tuplesort has had this problem forever. +1. If the problem isn't known to be reproducible in those branches, the risk of adding new bugs seems to outweigh any benefit. regards, tom lane