From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Ondřej Jirman <ienieghapheoghaiwida@xff.cz>
Cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Subject: Re: BUG #16129: Segfault in tts_virtual_materialize in logical replication worker
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 02:10:05 +0100
Message-ID: <20191122011005.cxyqpaicoelwoep5@development> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <15667.1574382815@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <20191121165752.dffge6bh756xlfdg@development>
<20191121173555.midj6vp4dmiiqs24@core.my.home>
<20191121185844.6qsqhwzzuhu3fpsg@core.my.home>
<20191121214115.3tgefmvkmrzaim74@development>
<20191121220854.ebdzjtloel56sfwu@development>
<13122.1574375845@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20191121234701.2wtyc77zd5ux3myf@development>
<14166.1574380607@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20191122001110.zfv45fkjiwkmli6s@development>
<15667.1574382815@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 07:33:35PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 06:56:47PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> "remoteslot" will contain its very own copy of the data, which
>>> is then summarily freed by ExecClearSlot.
>
>> But remoteslot is virtual, so it calls tts_virtual_copyslot, not the
>> heap one. And AFAIK tts_virtual_copyslot only copies contents of the
>> tts_values/tts_isnull arrays.
>
>Really?
>
>static void
>tts_virtual_copyslot(TupleTableSlot *dstslot, TupleTableSlot *srcslot)
>{
> ...
> /* make sure storage doesn't depend on external memory */
> tts_virtual_materialize(dstslot);
>}
>
D'oh! I entirely missed that last call, for some reason. And yes, the
new test does show we're using freed memory, the \x7F\x7F\x7F\x7F...
pattern is pretty clear.
It's a interesting it happens only with mismatching descriptors, though.
(Which the OP does not have, AFAICS.) I wonder if this might be due to
upstream being 11.6 ...
>In any case, I sure hope that Andres hasn't made the different
>versions of ExecCopySlot have different semantics --- if he has,
>he's got some explaining to do. But at least on this point,
>it looks to me like all three versions still satisfy the
>semantics that were clearly defined previously (v11 and before):
>
>/* --------------------------------
> * ExecCopySlot
> * Copy the source slot's contents into the destination slot.
> *
> * The destination acquires a private copy that will not go away
> * if the source is cleared.
> *
> * The caller must ensure the slots have compatible tupdescs.
> * --------------------------------
> */
>
>I'm sad that we seem to have lost this specification comment, though.
>
True.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Cc: tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, ienieghapheoghaiwida@xff.cz, andres@anarazel.de
Subject: Re: BUG #16129: Segfault in tts_virtual_materialize in logical replication worker
In-Reply-To: <20191122011005.cxyqpaicoelwoep5@development>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox