Re: double free corruption?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Erik Jones <erik(at)myemma(dot)com>
Cc: marcelo Cortez <jmdc_marcelo(at)yahoo(dot)com(dot)ar>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: double free corruption?
Date: 2007-12-28 16:41:20
Message-ID: 3918.1198860080@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Erik Jones <erik(at)myemma(dot)com> writes:
> Well, if Postgres had killed the proc itself it would have written
> out a nicely formatted Postgres-style memory context report along
> with an ERROR message along the lines of OUT OF MEMORY and the
> request size and Postgres would not have bounced. Since the
> postmaster dropped into recovery mode when the proc received the
> SIGABRT and died, that means that the signal came from somewhere
> else, OOM killer?

No, an abort() is expected when glibc's malloc code detects a problem,
and all that other junk is stuff that malloc helpfully prints on stderr
before committing hara-kiri.

This seems clearly a memory-stomp bug of some kind (although there's
a very small probability that it was a transient RAM glitch). Not much
we can do about it without a test case, though.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gauthier, Dave 2007-12-28 16:46:14 default superuser
Previous Message marcelo Cortez 2007-12-28 16:28:43 Re: double free corruption?