Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dgyDw-00014T-KP for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 13 Aug 2017 19:06:56 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dgyDu-0003Au-2g for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 13 Aug 2017 19:06:54 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dgyCM-0000R6-UP for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Sun, 13 Aug 2017 19:05:19 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dgyCK-0006N4-68 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Sun, 13 Aug 2017 19:05:17 +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 v7DJ5D8l011662; Sun, 13 Aug 2017 15:05:13 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Robert Haas cc: Jeevan Chalke , PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: Server crash (FailedAssertion) due to catcache refcount mis-handling In-reply-to: References: <4244.1502206577@sss.pgh.pa.us> <6299.1502209596@sss.pgh.pa.us> <16208.1502224491@sss.pgh.pa.us> <29325.1502246895@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas message dated "Thu, 10 Aug 2017 13:57:21 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <11660.1502651113.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 15:05:13 -0400 Message-ID: <11661.1502651113@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Robert Haas writes: >>> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>>> In the meantime, I think my vote would be to remove AtEOXact_CatCache. >>> In all supported branches? >> Whatever we do about this issue, I don't feel a need to do it further >> back than HEAD. It's a non-problem except in an assert-enabled build, >> and we don't recommend running those for production, only development. > Sure, but people still do testing and development against older > branches - bug fixes, for example. It doesn't make much sense to me > to leave code that we know does the wrong thing in the back branches. Not having heard anyone arguing against that, I'll go make it so, ie AtEOXact_CatCache is toast in all branches. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers