Message-ID: <1457547490.24545.90.camel@2ndquadrant.com>
Subject: Re: multivariate statistics v14
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, pgsql-hackers
	 <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 19:18:10 +0100
In-Reply-To: <1457544102.24545.79.camel@2ndquadrant.com>
References: <20160309122245.GA958049@alvherre.pgsql>
	 <1457535779.24545.71.camel@2ndquadrant.com>
	 <CAMkU=1wDq9Gm+mg0YYY_JVw6kxYD6=n_FG-YPLrOFyWVnBhy9Q@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1457544102.24545.79.camel@2ndquadrant.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On Wed, 2016-03-09 at 18:21 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, 2016-03-09 at 08:45 -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Tomas Vondra
> > <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > thanks for the feedback. Attached is v14 of the patch series, fixing
> > > most of the points you've raised.
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Tomas,
> > 
> > Applied to aa09cd242fa7e3a694a31f, I still get the seg faults in make
> > check if I configure without --enable-cassert.
> 
> Ah, after disabling asserts I can reproduce it too. And the reason why
> it fails is quite simple - clauselist_selectivity modifies the original
> list of clauses, which then confuses cost_qual_eval.

More precisely, it gets confused because the first clause in the list
gets deleted but cost_qual_eval never learns about that, and follows
stale pointer to the next cell, thus a segfault.

> 
> Can you try if the attached patch fixes the issue? I'll need to rework a
> bit more of the code, but let's see if this fixes the issue on your
> machine too.
> 
> > With --enable-cassert, it passes the regression test.
> 
> I wonder how can it work with casserts and fail without them. That's
> kinda exactly the opposite to what I'd expect ...

FWIW it seems to be somehow related to this assert in clausesel.c:

   Assert(count_mv_attnums(list_union(stat_clauses, stat_conditions),   
          relid, MV_CLAUSE_TYPE_MCV | MV_CLAUSE_TYPE_HIST) >= 2);

With the assert in place, the code passes without a failure. After
removing the assert (commenting it out), or even just changing it to

    Assert(count_mv_attnums(stat_clauses, relid,
                    MV_CLAUSE_TYPE_MCV | MV_CLAUSE_TYPE_HIST)
         + count_mv_attnums(stat_conditions, relid,
                    MV_CLAUSE_TYPE_MCV | MV_CLAUSE_TYPE_HIST) >= 2);

i.e. removing the list_union, it fails as expected.

The only thing that I can think of is that list_union happens to place
the right stuff at the right position in memory - pure luck.

regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers