Re: WAL format and API changes (9.5)

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WAL format and API changes (9.5)
Date: 2014-04-04 08:41:08
Message-ID: 20140404084108.GJ17307@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2014-04-04 10:48:32 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> But if we give the checkpointer process a free pass, running the regression
> tests with an assertion in AllocSetAlloc catches five genuine bugs:
>
> 1. _bt_newroot
> 2. XLogFileInit
> 3. spgPageIndexMultiDelete
> 4. PageRepairFragmentation
> 5. PageIndexMultiDelete

Some of those, like PageRepairFragmentation, are somewhat bad...

> @@ -484,10 +483,11 @@ PageRepairFragmentation(Page page)
> ((PageHeader) page)->pd_upper = pd_special;
> }
> else
> - { /* nstorage != 0 */
> + {
> /* Need to compact the page the hard way */
> - itemidbase = (itemIdSort) palloc(sizeof(itemIdSortData) * nstorage);
> - itemidptr = itemidbase;
> + itemIdSortData itemidbase[MaxHeapTuplesPerPage];
> + itemIdSort itemidptr = itemidbase;
> +

That's a fair bit of stack, and it can be called somewhat deep on the
stack via heap_page_prune_opt(). I wonder if we ought to add a
check_stack_depth() somewhere.

Thanks,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2014-04-04 09:50:25 Re: WAL format and API changes (9.5)
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2014-04-04 07:48:32 Re: WAL format and API changes (9.5)