From: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Decoding speculative insert with toast leaks memory |
Date: | 2021-06-17 07:22:06 |
Message-ID: | CA+HiwqEgEAgAwhiT9dC-q8myQS-Xw11vxcQNXwP8+dngyihU3g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 3:42 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 10:39 AM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 12:56 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 8:18 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > > > > Pushed!
> > > >
> > > > skink reports that this has valgrind issues:
> > > >
> > > > https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=skink&dt=2021-06-15%2020%3A49%3A26
> > > >
> > >
> > > The problem happens at line:
> > > rel_sync_cache_relation_cb()
> > > {
> > > ..
> > > if (entry->map)
> > > ..
> > >
> > > I think the reason is that before we initialize 'entry->map' in
> > > get_rel_sync_entry(), the invalidation is processed as part of which
> > > when we try to clean up the entry, it tries to access uninitialized
> > > value. Note, this won't happen in HEAD as we initialize 'entry->map'
> > > before we get to process any invalidation. We have fixed a similar
> > > issue in HEAD sometime back as part of the commit 69bd60672a, so we
> > > need to make a similar change in PG-13 as well.
> > >
> > > This problem is introduced by commit d250568121 (Fix memory leak due
> > > to RelationSyncEntry.map.) not by the patch in this thread, so keeping
> > > Amit L and Osumi-San in the loop.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Maybe not sufficient as a fix, but I wonder if
> > rel_sync_cache_relation_cb() should really also check that
> > replicate_valid is true in the following condition:
>
> I don't think that is required because we initialize the entry in "if
> (!found)" case in the HEAD.
Yeah, I see that. If we can be sure that the callback can't get
called between hash_search() allocating the entry and the above code
block making the entry look valid, which appears to be the case, then
I guess we don't need to worry.
> > /*
> > * Reset schema sent status as the relation definition may have changed.
> > * Also free any objects that depended on the earlier definition.
> > */
> > if (entry != NULL)
> > {
> >
> > If the problem is with HEAD,
> >
>
> The problem occurs only in PG-13. So, we need to make PG-13 code
> similar to HEAD as far as initialization of entry is concerned.
Oh I missed that the problem report is for the PG13 branch.
How about the attached patch then?
--
Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
pg13-init-RelationSyncEntry-properly.patch | application/octet-stream | 1.3 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zhihong Yu | 2021-06-17 07:23:09 | Re: Skip partition tuple routing with constant partition key |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-06-17 07:18:47 | Re: Two patches to speed up pg_rewind. |