Re: Server process crash - Segmentation fault

From: Leif Jensen <leif(at)crysberg(dot)dk>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Server process crash - Segmentation fault
Date: 2014-05-07 17:16:56
Message-ID: 4548428.10806.1399483016605.JavaMail.root@quick
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-general

Could it be related to the OFFSET part of the statement ? I have another query on the same table without OFFSET, which seems to work fine.

Leif

----- Original Message -----
> Leif Jensen <leif(at)crysberg(dot)dk> writes:
> > Here is a gdb dump of the backtrace at the server process crash.
> > I have also included the code that generates these calls. As
> > mentioned below this specific connection has been used many times
> > before the crash. Also, we are aware of the thread caveat that
> > only using a connection from one thread at a time. Therefore the
> > "strange" connection name that includes both the process id and
> > the thread id. This is for the code to make sure that a
> > connection is only used in the thread it is meant to.
>
> Hm. The crash looks like it must be because ActiveSnapshot is null
> (not set). Since we're doing a FETCH, the active snapshot ought to
> be the one saved for the cursor query by DECLARE CURSOR. It looks
> like the problem is that pquery.c only bothers to install that as the
> active snapshot while calling ExecutorRun, but in this stack trace
> we're in ExecutorRewind.
>
> I wonder if it's a bad idea for ExecReScanLimit to be executing
> user-defined expressions? But it's been like that for awhile,
> and I think we might have a hard time preserving the bounded-sort
> optimization if we didn't do that.
>
> Anyway the simple fix would be to ensure we install the query
> snapshot as active before calling ExecutorRewind.
>
> One interesting question is why this issue hasn't been seen before;
> it seems like it'd not be that hard to hit.
>
> regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-05-07 17:39:43 Re: Server process crash - Segmentation fault
Previous Message Andres Freund 2014-05-07 16:52:10 Re: BUG #10255: CREATE COLLATION bug on 9.4

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Janes 2014-05-07 17:26:17 Re: Building Postgres using mingw
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-05-07 16:51:42 Re: How to fix lost synchronization with server