Re: Buildfarm failures for hash indexes: buffer leaks
От | Fabien COELHO |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Buildfarm failures for hash indexes: buffer leaks |
Дата | |
Msg-id | alpine.DEB.2.21.1810231347510.30118@lancre обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Buildfarm failures for hash indexes: buffer leaks (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Buildfarm failures for hash indexes: buffer leaks
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Tom & Amit, >>> Both animals use gcc experimental versions, which may rather underline a >>> new bug in gcc head rather than an existing issue in pg. Or not. > >> It is possible, but what could be the possible theory? > > It seems like the two feasible theories are (1) gcc bug, or (2) buffer > leak that only occurs in very narrow circumstances, perhaps from a race > condition. Given that the hash index code hasn't changed meaningfully > in several months, I thought (1) seemed more probable. Yep, that is my thought as well. The problem is that this kind of issue is not simple to wrap-up as a gcc bug report, unlike other earlier instances that I forwarded to clang & gcc dev teams. I'm in favor in waiting before trying to report it, to check whether the probable underlying gcc problem is detected, reported by someone else, and fixed in gcc head. If it persists, then we'll see. -- Fabien.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: