Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nYDp8-0002Lo-89 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 26 Mar 2022 21:19:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nYDp7-00044t-1Q for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 26 Mar 2022 21:19:49 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nYDp6-00043L-OT for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Sat, 26 Mar 2022 21:19:48 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nYDp4-0008Ne-JO for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Sat, 26 Mar 2022 21:19:47 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 22QLJhms167388; Sat, 26 Mar 2022 17:19:43 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Andrew Dunstan cc: Andres Freund , pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: Why is lorikeet so unstable in v14 branch only? In-reply-to: References: <136102.1648320427@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20220326194948.mksfw6z3fysojpxx@alap3.anarazel.de> Comments: In-reply-to Andrew Dunstan message dated "Sat, 26 Mar 2022 16:57:39 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <167386.1648329583.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2022 17:19:43 -0400 Message-ID: <167387.1648329583@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Andrew Dunstan writes: > On 3/26/22 15:49, Andres Freund wrote: >> One interesting bit in the config is: >> [ lack of ] >> 'update_process_title = off' > I'd forgotten about that. Let me do that for REL_14_STABLE and see where > we get to. Hm. But if that does mitigate it, it still seems like a bug no? Why would that be preferentially crashing partitioned-table creation? regards, tom lane