| From: | John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: pg15b1: FailedAssertion("val > base", File: "...src/include/utils/relptr.h", Line: 67, PID: 30485) |
| Date: | 2022-06-22 02:49:50 |
| Message-ID: | CAFBsxsEAyM9ume5Kfxi6+Mnnhh66tHbxPo3b-25boTPixXMNCA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 2:57 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> We do use fpm_segment_base(), but that accidentally fails
> to break, because instead of using relptr_access() it drills right
> through the abstraction and doesn't have any kind of special case for
> 0. So we can fix this by:
>
> 1. Using a relative pointer value other than 0 to represent a null
> pointer. Andres suggested (Size) -1.
> 2. Not storing the free page manager for the DSM in the main shared
> memory segment at byte offset 0.
Hi all,
For this open item, the above two ideas were discussed as a short-term
fix, and my reading of the thread is that the other proposals are too
invasive at this point in the cycle. Both of them have a draft patch
in the thread. #2, i.e. wasting MAXALIGN of space, seems the simplest
and most localized. Any thoughts on pulling the trigger on either of
these two approaches?
--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-06-22 02:54:47 | Re: pg15b1: FailedAssertion("val > base", File: "...src/include/utils/relptr.h", Line: 67, PID: 30485) |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-06-22 02:33:01 | Re: Is RecoveryConflictInterrupt() entirely safe in a signal handler? |