Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1odDhP-0003FC-B1 for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 16:44:47 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1odDhO-0004AH-0s for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 16:44:46 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1odDhN-0004A7-Og for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 16:44:45 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1odDhL-0006uS-IJ for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 16:44:45 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 28RGiePc3802604; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 12:44:40 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Peter Geoghegan cc: Thomas Munro , Dmitry Astapov , pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: BUG #17619: AllocSizeIsValid violation in parallel hash join In-reply-to: References: <17619-0de62ceda812b8b5@postgresql.org> <2169849.1663975173@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3800397.1664295848@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Peter Geoghegan message dated "Tue, 27 Sep 2022 09:40:05 -0700" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3802602.1664297080.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 12:44:40 -0400 Message-ID: <3802603.1664297080@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Peter Geoghegan writes: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 9:24 AM Tom Lane wrote: >> 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. > Isn't that already how it works? The problem is that it's not > particularly clear that that's how it works right now. And that the > dynamic shared memory stuff isn't tested via the same techniques that > we use for palloc. Right, the missing piece is the intentional clobber. Thomas indicated he'd made such a test locally, but I think it needs full support with the same options that mcxt.c has (CLOBBER_FREED_MEMORY and so on --- although unmapping the memory is equally good for that, if we always do it). regards, tom lane