From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
 Dmitry Astapov <dastapov@gmail.com>,
        pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #17619: AllocSizeIsValid violation in parallel hash join
In-reply-to: 
 <CAH2-Wz=+K9K+RYKLyDbPsp_gKfM_2YS-8zU4NxDY+EJ132cLMw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <17619-0de62ceda812b8b5@postgresql.org>
 <CA+hUKGKu3xSP7JsRGHw0d2Lxe_e4Y-3bf_1dkgAZj7xcsG=q1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFQUnFiiPUOWihzjH7gevyaGGnX3tskr_3YFtNhv-AzpzY-jrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFQUnFgvgfnwrPQ8j4DSeAHUoZy=FbG9nhBCakrnUQ8KuyRZJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFQUnFhEFTaMafweOG2P7FNToLeiDFrsYRfSBk7TrrkTv+3fMA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+hUKGL1OuDjd5EipFwUnKxKUTWZLhLssBHLOj4Vzo46M9XCYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2169849.1663975173@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAH2-Wzk+wEsNxXJwt=jHpExbBFh+vLnyfJ7CcNqMmnGkiQvFKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH2-Wzks9HkNoBWdFhB0Q8uT4JOw2mcYJ5Sm7Ara_NutTHLs8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH2-Wz=+K9K+RYKLyDbPsp_gKfM_2YS-8zU4NxDY+EJ132cLMw@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
	message dated "Tue, 27 Sep 2022 09:13:02 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3800396.1664295848.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 12:24:08 -0400
Message-ID: <3800397.1664295848@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3800397.1664295848%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 6:31 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
>> Uh, why is it okay that we don't zero-initialize memory used for
>> things like PARALLEL_KEY_BUFFER_USAGE and PARALLEL_KEY_WAL_USAGE?

> Ping? I'm pretty sure that this needs to be fixed.

That scares me too, but how come things aren't falling over
routinely?  Can we even make a test case where it breaks?

I think I'd personally prefer to treat such memory more like we
treat palloc'd memory, ie there's *not* a guarantee of zero
initialization and indeed testing builds intentionally clobber it.

			regards, tom lane