On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 02:35:33AM +0000, Andrew Gierth wrote:
! Yes, the database is supposed to be able to run without SSE2, as long as
! it is built with gcc and not clang, and without any architecture flags
! that imply SSE2 support.
Okay, thank You, thats what I was worrying - as some developers make a
strategic decision here.
! I'm pretty sure nothing in our buildfarm is i386 without SSE2 though.
*laugh* no problem with that. There probably wouldn't be any reason
to have such.
Here I have a couple of good reasons: that machine does for what
other people buy a little plastic box from the shelf called internet
access router - and besides being stupid, these pieces are full of
bugs and get hacked (I doubt anybody would bother to write a spectre
exploit for pentium3, although it should be possible).
And on the other side, this is a server board built for 365/24
running on regECC mem. A new one of that class would inevitably carry
quite a big Xeon, and so would do nothing than idle here. I see no
point in such investment, at least not until Intel comes up with a
really nice new design getting rid of the crap.
https://www.techradar.com/news/spoiler-flaw-in-intel-cpus-is-similar-to-spectre-yet-dangerously-different
! Peter> Whateever information You like to have, just ask and I will
! Peter> gladly do my best to obtain it, as I get around. (This is a
! Peter> reproducible on a very well maintained piece of software - this
! Peter> is rather fun.)
!
! Your backtrace implies that you are running with checksums enabled;
! true?
Correct.
! Peter> The crash happens at a specific query - I get parse,bind, but no
! Peter> execute timing.
!
! What is the exact query?
This will be some work. It includes about six different sql functions
(and some of these are probably also old enough to vote).
! I'm doing some investigations of my own, I may have more questions
! later.
You're welcome.
rgds,
PMc