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.
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 |