Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gK6TJ-0000Te-B9 for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2018 18:53:05 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gK6TH-0004jK-Gx for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2018 18:53:03 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gK6TH-0004jD-0y for pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2018 18:53:03 +0000 Received: from mail-qk1-x742.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::742]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gK6TD-0000fe-IW for pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2018 18:53:01 +0000 Received: by mail-qk1-x742.google.com with SMTP id n12so19054184qkh.11 for ; Tue, 06 Nov 2018 10:52:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=2ndquadrant-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mime-version:content-disposition :content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=nwt2MiXrRuQ1pAegJjN+Ns4Ct9Cn8Z4uCPH8cSp30cA=; b=NCbh2wG4CY8iaBue1fbcE0FOpFghSv+AkJdBdhDbQrADcsIMe9YZbojhaQlbVGi+1j pbz95nqnRA4wBneUDST28n+heEQg5VNf70GunJLRy47PwhB5ACgCDZebYOPMUMLRZvkV eUw3qhBbWg0ZTScDSvVI+qiukHZLJ9BIvJ+oCuyZcNjROLIEv1m9YnG/CTkALHX/1BC+ zrgVBr9ZdUA4b6n/jpYkZZ0AEf2pWvQBmqTnzbpVKvdfGZ+64LsZaBXtkmFkIJJtTBtk 2nAThvIrt/+OZbTda7Rjr5C0B5Ox9OvxoWZ8M/79jLczjy20g8PawMF2Jypg5lKbkFHO 7sfg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=nwt2MiXrRuQ1pAegJjN+Ns4Ct9Cn8Z4uCPH8cSp30cA=; b=bqEGOwFVpBMgXbf3kDdSERu5ZOvXTmucsRgLrFV4Q8ImZIDYak6KYfBrsMGjLqX9rR SlH9CeYt/0ALC+TTL+IkwM43sg5+npKtpxTo+TxK3WsdIU8uAJrR8PPB5/6L96QBrY68 kCQMuLFSJXjcVR3a1LvVO2MCbdzZkgNXwTD9RfTezoMD6sw/Hfgem6pPFXO6VaIQrbbW AnOTRUJZvvB8xi0QMM5KltRCdSmZ8EUaiR6VVoKbqaAFN5cGQxGQTQH28IBqPxWkL3MP hK5xGr/KC/4nfXeAXcVvUJ8PYxtIAaqEX3QKjmD4kLz3xIdqyQ5uhJl+wojqPGltS3/2 KQqQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gJzKQ8upaSsdHLHrdNDweu+ynIr70OtONTP8tNGjPD7GsTeAD6C nVDTHnRSF4iHbuj3dVWLBmrgHQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5d2703glbMhdQDoj8UtjqjNgvEa+AD20eH2FzVw/axfJCRoJ3CqfAHzPMocR1MwdMBx8+8uOg== X-Received: by 2002:a37:90c5:: with SMTP id s188-v6mr25709398qkd.104.1541530378564; Tue, 06 Nov 2018 10:52:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from alvin.alvh.no-ip.org ([190.121.29.3]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d124-v6sm27263760qkf.85.2018.11.06.10.52.57 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Tue, 06 Nov 2018 10:52:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by alvin.alvh.no-ip.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4D4D35FA; Tue, 6 Nov 2018 15:52:55 -0300 (-03) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 15:52:55 -0300 From: Alvaro Herrera To: =?utf-8?Q?Ond=C5=99ej?= Bouda Cc: Tom Lane , pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org, Karsten Hilbert Subject: Re: backend crash on DELETE, reproducible locally Message-ID: <20181106185255.776mstcyehnc63ty@alvherre.pgsql> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk On 2018-Nov-06, Ondřej Bouda wrote: > So we dumped and restored all our databases. After that, the crash on DELETE > never occurred (before, it was several times a day). However, the crash on > UPDATE still occurs on specific rows. We are quite certain no ALTER TABLE > statement was executed on the table after the restore. > There are two AFTER INSERT OR UPDATE constraint triggers and one BEFORE > INSERT OR UPDATE trigger on the table, all of which are implemented in > plpgsql. Multiple physical servers, on separate databases with identical > schema, crash on the same type of UPDATE query (different just in concrete > values to be updated). The same code worked perfectly on 10.x. > > See the attached backtrace below. Can we do something else to catch the bug? > Or can we hope for this bug to be already fixed and released in the upcoming > version? Hmm, this one smells like c203d6cf81b4 -- haven't seen any fixes for that one. Can you share more details on this? I think the failing update is on table with oid=557732818, but I might be wrong. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services