Re: Assertion failure in REL9_5_STABLE

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Assertion failure in REL9_5_STABLE
Date: 2016-08-11 06:48:01
Message-ID: CAB7nPqRpnr2zWhxBF8NBZCx6mEmFT=EMOO7fG8HZx-Av_U88gA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> wrote:
> On 2016-08-11 12:09 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>
>> BTW this is not a regression, right? It's been broken all along. Or am
>> I mistaken?
>
>
> You're probably right. I just hadn't realized I could run our app against
> 9.5 with --enable-cassert until last week.

Just wondering... If you revert 1f9534b4 and/or b33e81cb do you still
see a problem?
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2016-08-11 07:21:51 Re: new autovacuum criterion for visible pages
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2016-08-11 06:29:30 Re: new autovacuum criterion for visible pages