| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dmitry Astapov <dastapov(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #17619: AllocSizeIsValid violation in parallel hash join |
| Date: | 2022-09-27 16:24:08 |
| Message-ID: | 3800397.1664295848@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 6:31 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
>> Uh, why is it okay that we don't zero-initialize memory used for
>> things like PARALLEL_KEY_BUFFER_USAGE and PARALLEL_KEY_WAL_USAGE?
> Ping? I'm pretty sure that this needs to be fixed.
That scares me too, but how come things aren't falling over
routinely? Can we even make a test case where it breaks?
I think I'd personally prefer to treat such memory more like we
treat palloc'd memory, ie there's *not* a guarantee of zero
initialization and indeed testing builds intentionally clobber it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2022-09-27 16:40:05 | Re: BUG #17619: AllocSizeIsValid violation in parallel hash join |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2022-09-27 16:13:02 | Re: BUG #17619: AllocSizeIsValid violation in parallel hash join |