From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(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>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions |
Date: | 2021-04-28 05:33:38 |
Message-ID: | CAFiTN-uVn7Co2EG7NxipzvBTS_=9uJFtZ598H+=Tydwa_TTU=Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 11:00 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Tom Lane has raised a complaint on pgsql-commiters [1] about one of
> the commits related to this work [2]. The new member wrasse is showing
> Warning:
>
> "/export/home/nm/farm/studio64v12_6/HEAD/pgsql.build/../pgsql/src/backend/replication/logical/reorderbuffer.c",
> line 2510: Warning: Likely null pointer dereference (*(curtxn+272)):
> ReorderBufferProcessTXN
>
> The Warning is for line:
> curtxn->concurrent_abort = true;
>
> Now, we can simply fix this warning by adding an if check like:
> if (curtxn)
> curtxn->concurrent_abort = true;
>
> However, on further discussion, it seems that is not sufficient here
> because the callbacks can throw the surrounding error code
> (ERRCODE_TRANSACTION_ROLLBACK) where we set concurrent_abort flag for
> a completely different scenario. I think here we need a
> stronger check to ensure that we set concurrent abort flag and do
> other things in that check only when we are decoding non-committed
> xacts.
That makes sense.
The idea I have is to additionally check that we are decoding
> streaming or prepared transaction (the same check as we have for
> setting curtxn) or we can check if CheckXidAlive is a valid
> transaction id. What do you think?
I think a check based on CheckXidAlive looks good to me. This will
protect against if a similar error is raised from any other path as
you mentioned above.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2021-04-28 05:43:27 | Re: Since '2001-09-09 01:46:40'::timestamp microseconds are lost when extracting epoch |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-04-28 05:30:01 | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions |