Re: Shortcoming in CLOBBER_FREED_MEMORY coverage: disk buffer pointers

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Shortcoming in CLOBBER_FREED_MEMORY coverage: disk buffer pointers
Date: 2015-01-26 22:51:20
Message-ID: 18123.1422312680@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> writes:
> On 1/24/15 3:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Another idea is to teach Valgrind that whenever a backend reduces its
>> pin count on a shared buffer to zero, that buffer should become undefined
>> memory.

> <paranoia>

> Shouldn't this technically tie in with ResourceOwners?

No. ResourceOwner is just a mechanism to ensure that we remember to call
UnpinBuffer, it has no impact on what the semantics of the pin count are.
The *instant* the pin count goes to zero, another backend is entitled to
recycle that buffer for some other purpose.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2015-01-26 23:03:26 Re: New CF app deployment
Previous Message Robert Haas 2015-01-26 22:45:52 Re: pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL