From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ondřej Jirman <ienieghapheoghaiwida(at)xff(dot)cz>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #16129: Segfault in tts_virtual_materialize in logical replication worker |
Date: | 2019-11-21 23:56:47 |
Message-ID: | 14166.1574380607@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 05:37:25PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't think that's quite true. After the ExecCopySlot call, the
> pass-by-ref Datums in remoteslot will point to a tuple attached to
> localslot. But it does not pass the tuple 'ownership' to the remoteslot,
> i.e. the flag TTS_FLAG_SHOULDFREE won't be set, i.e. the tuple won't be
> freed.
Nope:
static void
tts_heap_copyslot(TupleTableSlot *dstslot, TupleTableSlot *srcslot)
{
HeapTuple tuple;
MemoryContext oldcontext;
oldcontext = MemoryContextSwitchTo(dstslot->tts_mcxt);
tuple = ExecCopySlotHeapTuple(srcslot);
MemoryContextSwitchTo(oldcontext);
ExecStoreHeapTuple(tuple, dstslot, true);
}
"remoteslot" will contain its very own copy of the data, which
is then summarily freed by ExecClearSlot.
>> I imagine the only reason this code has gotten past the valgrind
>> animals is that we're not testing cases where non-replaced columns
>> in the subscriber table are of pass-by-ref types.
> I haven't checked, but I'd imagine we actually do such tests. I've
> however tried to reproduce this, unsuccessfully.
I did check, and we don't. See patch.
It's possible that the OP is seeing some different problem,
but I can definitely demonstrate that there is a problem
that this change fixes.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2019-11-22 00:11:10 | Re: BUG #16129: Segfault in tts_virtual_materialize in logical replication worker |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2019-11-21 23:47:01 | Re: BUG #16129: Segfault in tts_virtual_materialize in logical replication worker |