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
