Re: Parallel Seq Scan

On 13-03-2015 PM 11:03, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> I don't think this is the right fix; the point of that code is to
>> remove a tuple queue from the funnel when it gets detached, which is a
>> correct thing to want to do. funnel->nextqueue should always be less
>> than funnel->nqueues; how is that failing to be the case here?
>>
>
> I could not reproduce the issue, neither the exact scenario is
> mentioned in mail. However what I think can lead to funnel->nextqueue
> greater than funnel->nqueues is something like below:
>
> Assume 5 queues, so value of funnel->nqueues will be 5 and
> assume value of funnel->nextqueue is 2, so now let us say 4 workers
> got detached one-by-one, so for such a case it will always go in else loop
> and will never change funnel->nextqueue whereas value of funnel->nqueues
> will become 1.
>

Or if the just-detached queue happens to be the last one, we'll make
shm_mq_receive() to read from a potentially already-detached queue in the
immediately next iteration. That seems to be caused by not having updated the
funnel->nextqueue. With the returned value being SHM_MQ_DETACHED, we'll again
try to remove it from the queue. In this case, it causes the third argument to
memcpy be negative and hence the segfault.

I can't seem to really figure out the other problem of waiting forever in
WaitLatch() but I had managed to make it go away with:

- if (funnel->nextqueue == waitpos)
+ if (result != SHM_MQ_DETACHED && funnel->nextqueue == waitpos)

By the way, you can try reproducing this with the example I posted on Friday.

Thanks,
Amit