Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hDVZU-0007l4-Pt for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 08 Apr 2019 14:48:29 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hDVZS-0005qg-CY for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 08 Apr 2019 14:48:26 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hDVZN-0005fq-Vx for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 08 Apr 2019 14:48:26 +0000 Received: from mail-pf1-x441.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::441]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hDVZD-0008UL-2e for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Mon, 08 Apr 2019 14:48:20 +0000 Received: by mail-pf1-x441.google.com with SMTP id z5so7765007pfn.3 for ; Mon, 08 Apr 2019 07:48:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=leadboat.com; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=tKWjGxMOBC0/QJMLXwbpKeSEa0KwmSO3iGu/DmtXlG8=; b=L4oi6mTGlH5e/QwT7BWvI/LchoQqdS9uWkm2xKLV/V32FHI48x9UKAu8vXswJPyKEv UJSfJBKaMzhF9Krm8iuAGe1f6Ml0w7qhSxX4djvj9dkSdf57OTKs851+raofOyoeOO9I zbYBLkOnlRjtkhjedijlhTHtxvU7PB55a3k+A= 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:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=tKWjGxMOBC0/QJMLXwbpKeSEa0KwmSO3iGu/DmtXlG8=; b=LMMLYZLjipdoSYp8/wBa2aWTbWpKLDoUIVio7fS0KufZj7Fx7BDnGxWl8TvY7TXuqc rRBHtkQarKnuKajHlkX+RFBpiGMxCQjEcZ4/V0T2AZ59300/W9v04bDYus9RsWQ1Q6ej ikGx/3ds8SYIlTxPJrr5CQ8JWlbz6MSf9zZ4SzGkEGeEXbblb9SjRFKu1E5+qowKJIHS L8BwPYSRjDchmneEkxGLwZ5dYqOuhn4tswV8riUJUpt7ACj9ppNdDtCFtig+cxZK7IzC aAjivisACtB2fETBiyjiNLFI7F6xgE33YlRpBRpijbMXfETi65ToB2Lj2mElHnlB/rrs N10w== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUK/EqXDuI6cFjUq9pqRP+5P5D/4Gyp5t9zHInSY0cVt/x81HsM B2BsUMlW7Z2Obf1/x1HdU1tvkg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzX9MS4jI72txWDADLYH3r0hskjrklJ+LTX70B9NwvBd20vUX03RFtR8lCsOfa971nbvzKF+Q== X-Received: by 2002:a63:6983:: with SMTP id e125mr27456708pgc.370.1554734887943; Mon, 08 Apr 2019 07:48:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfd.leadboat.com (108-233-125-46.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net. [108.233.125.46]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y20sm23766895pfe.188.2019.04.08.07.48.06 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 08 Apr 2019 07:48:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 07:48:04 -0700 From: Noah Misch To: Thomas Munro Cc: Daniel Gustafsson , Kyotaro HORIGUCHI , "9erthalion6@gmail.com" <9erthalion6@gmail.com>, "sfrost@snowman.net" , "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Weaker shmem interlock w/o postmaster.pid Message-ID: <20190408144804.GA2389874@rfd.leadboat.com> References: <20190304.180420.139624607.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> <20190307032422.GB1797215@rfd.leadboat.com> <20190309071610.GA2039121@rfd.leadboat.com> <20190331224233.GC891537@rfd.leadboat.com> <20190404020543.GA1319573@rfd.leadboat.com> <20190404145319.GA1720877@rfd.leadboat.com> <20190408064141.GA2016666@rfd.leadboat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 08:07:28PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 6:42 PM Noah Misch wrote: > > - lorikeet's FailedAssertion("!(vmq->mq_sender == ((void *)0))" looked > > suspicious, but this happened six other times in the past year[2], always on > > v10 lorikeet. > > It happens on v11 too: > > https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=lorikeet&dt=2018-09-25%2010%3A06%3A31 > > The text changed slightly because we dropped an unnecessary extra > pointer-to-volatile: > > FailedAssertion("!(mq->mq_sender == ((void *)0))" > > So either two workers started with the same parallel worker number, or > something unexpectedly overwrote the shm_mq struct? Ahh. In that case, it's a duplicate of https://postgr.es/m/flat/136712b0-0619-5619-4634-0f0286acaef7%402ndQuadrant.com