Re: Buildfarm failure and dubious coding in predicate.c

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 7:24 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> Ahh, I think I see it.  This is an EXEC_BACKEND build farm animal.
>> Theory: After the backend we see had removed the scratch entry and
>> before it had restored it, another backend started up and ran
>> InitPredicateLocks(), which inserted a new scratch entry without
>> interlocking.
>
> Ouch.  Yes, I think you're probably right.  It needs to skip that if
> IsUnderPostmaster.  Seems like there ought to be an Assert(!found)
> there, too.  And I don't think I entirely like the fact that there's
> no assertions about the found/not found cases below, either.
>
> Will fix, unless you're already on it?

I was going to send a short patch that would test IsUnderPostmaster,
but I got lost down a rabbit hole trying to figure out how to make my
EXEC_BACKEND builds run on this machine...  Please go ahead.

-- 
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com