| From: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Assert failure on 'list_member_ptr(rel->joininfo, restrictinfo)' |
| Date: | 2023-11-15 15:06:32 |
| Message-ID: | CAPpHfdtSQr-G7Lct_VLy7uAEH9tR5V4LghxtNZQ9pQBmJbZu0g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 8:04 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> On 2023-11-14 14:42:13 +0200, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > It's possibly dumb option, but what about just removing the assert?
>
> That's not at all an option - the in-place bms_* functions can free their
> input. So a dangling pointer to the "old" version is a use-after-free waiting
> to happen - you just need a query that actually gets to bitmapsets that are a
> bit larger.
Yeah, now I got it, thank you. I was under the wrong impression that
bitmapset has the level of indirection, so the pointer remains valid.
Now, I see that bitmapset manipulation functions can do free/repalloc
making the previous bitmapset pointer invalid.
------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2023-11-15 15:07:15 | Re: Assert failure on 'list_member_ptr(rel->joininfo, restrictinfo)' |
| Previous Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2023-11-15 15:03:23 | Re: Fix documentation for pg_stat_statements JIT deform_counter |