Re: SIGSEGV from START_REPLICATION 0/XXXXXXX in XLogSendPhysical () at walsender.c:2762

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SIGSEGV from START_REPLICATION 0/XXXXXXX in XLogSendPhysical () at walsender.c:2762
Date: 2020-06-02 04:24:56
Message-ID: 20200602042456.GA3594@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 06:09:06PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Yes. Conversely, if we start logical replication in a physical
> replication connection (i.g. replication=true) we got an error before
> staring replication:
>
> ERROR: logical decoding requires a database connection
>
> I think we can prevent that SEGV in a similar way.

Still unconvinced as this restriction stands for logical decoding
requiring a database connection but it is not necessarily true now as
physical replication has less restrictions than a logical one.

Looking at the code, I think that there is some confusion with the
fake WAL reader used as base reference in InitWalSender() where we
assume that it could only be used in the context of a non-database WAL
sender. However, this initialization happens when the WAL sender
connection is initialized, and what I think this misses is that we
should try to initialize a WAL reader when actually going through a
START_REPLICATION command.

I can note as well that StartLogicalReplication() moves in this sense
by setting xlogreader to be the one from logical_decoding_ctx once the
decoding context has been created.

This results in the attached. The extra test from upthread to check
that logical decoding is not allowed in a non-database WAL sender is a
good idea, so I have kept it.
--
Michael

Attachment Content-Type Size
walsender-crash-v2.patch text/x-diff 5.0 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2020-06-02 04:49:17 Re: Read access for pg_monitor to pg_replication_origin_status view
Previous Message Amit Langote 2020-06-02 04:15:24 Re: making update/delete of inheritance trees scale better