Re: weird hash plan cost, starting with pg10

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: weird hash plan cost, starting with pg10
Date: 2020-03-23 20:55:11
Message-ID: CA+hUKGKC3Wzkq3bB0fpYx3H=AZWG6GnU5BcsuEaCYdwQbEY3vA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 6:01 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > While messing with EXPLAIN on a query emitted by pg_dump, I noticed that
> > current Postgres 10 emits weird bucket/batch/memory values for certain
> > hash nodes:
>
> > -> Hash (cost=0.11..0.11 rows=10 width=12) (actual time=0.002..0.002 rows=1 loops=8)
> > Buckets: 2139062143 Batches: 2139062143 Memory Usage: 8971876904722400kB
> > -> Function Scan on unnest init_1 (cost=0.01..0.11 rows=10 width=12) (actual time=0.001..0.001 rows=1 loops=8)
>
> Looks suspiciously like uninitialized memory ...

I think "hashtable" might have been pfree'd before
ExecHashGetInstrumentation() ran, because those numbers look like
CLOBBER_FREED_MEMORY's pattern:

>>> hex(2139062143)
'0x7f7f7f7f'
>>> hex(8971876904722400 / 1024)
'0x7f7f7f7f7f7'

Maybe there is something wrong with the shutdown order of nested subplans.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Teja Mupparti 2020-03-23 20:56:59 Corruption during WAL replay
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2020-03-23 20:40:21 Re: Option to dump foreign data in pg_dump