From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2022-09-30 06:33:40 |
Message-ID: | CAD21AoAwTv5Ydun+UcjxLVYrmcROvwrQBvVURxGCw5sShePw3A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 6:17 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 12:15 PM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > I believe that Thomas was going to do something like this anyway. I'm
> > > happy to leave it up to him, but I can pursue this separately if that
> > > makes sense.
> >
> > Why not clobber "lower down" in dsm_create(), as I showed? You don't
> > have to use the table-of-contents mechanism to use DSM memory.
>
> I have no strong feelings either way. That approach might well be better.
>
> It might even be useful to do both together. The redundancy probably
> wouldn't hurt, and might even help in the future (it might not stay
> redundant forever). We don't necessarily need to worry too much about
> added cycles for something like this. Just as long as it's not
> *completely* gratuitous.
+1
I think we can clobber the memory also in dsm_deatch() if the memory
comes from the pool configured by min_dynamic_shared_memory.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-09-30 14:29:47 | Re: BUG #17625: In PG15 PQsslAttribute returns different values than PG14 when SSL is not in use for the connection |
Previous Message | Frank van Vugt | 2022-09-30 06:33:17 | v15rc1 shadowbuild fails when using src from symlink |