From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>
cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Buildfarm failure and dubious coding in predicate.c
In-reply-to: 
 <CAEepm=2x6QaWZx7U7=exeSQJKBZbmRhH4AVAQYDx=Jik5W_C6g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <10593.1500670709@sss.pgh.pa.us> <21591.1500755559@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAEepm=2RN2AEksa2v=5cPQhO1awM-J5=CMK4GBKKvDb=vN9wPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEepm=2x6QaWZx7U7=exeSQJKBZbmRhH4AVAQYDx=Jik5W_C6g@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>
	message dated "Tue, 25 Jul 2017 06:49:45 +1200"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1375.1500924241.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 15:24:01 -0400
Message-ID: <1376.1500924241@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Ahh, I think I see it.  This is an EXEC_BACKEND build farm animal.
> Theory: After the backend we see had removed the scratch entry and
> before it had restored it, another backend started up and ran
> InitPredicateLocks(), which inserted a new scratch entry without
> interlocking.

Ouch.  Yes, I think you're probably right.  It needs to skip that if
IsUnderPostmaster.  Seems like there ought to be an Assert(!found)
there, too.  And I don't think I entirely like the fact that there's
no assertions about the found/not found cases below, either.

Will fix, unless you're already on it?

			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