Re: BUG #19078: Segfaults in tts_minimal_store_tuple() following pg_upgrade
От | David Rowley |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #19078: Segfaults in tts_minimal_store_tuple() following pg_upgrade |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAApHDvoEJ6z89TQxtC_Zi6xtGyTNzcrtJs=6MMO_-vybWQE6gA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #19078: Segfaults in tts_minimal_store_tuple() following pg_upgrade (David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #19078: Segfaults in tts_minimal_store_tuple() following pg_upgrade
Re: BUG #19078: Segfaults in tts_minimal_store_tuple() following pg_upgrade Re: BUG #19078: Segfaults in tts_minimal_store_tuple() following pg_upgrade |
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 at 11:45, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 at 03:21, Yuri Zamyatin <yuri@yrz.am> wrote: > > In 1-2 minutes, 5 processes died with segfault. > > Perfect. Thank you. > > It seems to be some more forgotten EPQ stuff from d47cbf474. Amit got > some of these in 8741e48e5, but evidently the test case didn't do > pruning during execution, (only init plan pruning) so the partition > directory wasn't needed. I forgot to mention, this isn't the same thing as the tts_minimal_store_tuple() issue you first reported, so if there is a problem there, this one has nothing to do with it. Any chance of a self-contained test case for the enable_hashagg=on crash? David
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: