| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, John Gorman <johngorman2(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PATCH: two slab-like memory allocators |
| Date: | 2017-03-06 17:40:18 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY6F5ry7hiabiWFvU40bVgVruLB9YGP0D2O4Tb_zNXOUw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> The issue was that on 32bit platforms the Datum returned by some
> functions (int2int4_sum in this case) isn't actually a separately
> allocated Datum, but rather just something embedded in a larger
> struct. That, combined with the following code:
> if (!peraggstate->resulttypeByVal && !*isnull &&
> !MemoryContextContains(CurrentMemoryContext,
> DatumGetPointer(*result)))
> seems somewhat problematic to me. MemoryContextContains() can give
> false positives when used on memory that's not a distinctly allocated
> chunk, and if so, we violate memory lifetime rules. It's quite
> unlikely, given the required bit patterns, but nonetheless it's making
> me somewhat uncomfortable.
>
> Do others think this isn't an issue and we can just live with it?
I think it's 100% broken to call MemoryContextContains() on something
that's not guaranteed to be a palloc'd chunk.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-03-06 17:44:06 | Re: PATCH: two slab-like memory allocators |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-03-06 17:36:41 | Re: [PATCH] Use $ parameters as replacement characters for pg_stat_statements |