Re: BUG #17619: AllocSizeIsValid violation in parallel hash join

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dmitry Astapov <dastapov(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #17619: AllocSizeIsValid violation in parallel hash join
Date: 2022-09-24 00:12:19
Message-ID: CAH2-Wzk+wEsNxXJwt=jHpExbBFh+vLnyfJ7CcNqMmnGkiQvFKw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 4:19 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> That's a fairly scary observation. What other places are silently
> expecting such memory to be zeroed? Do we need to fix things so
> that min_dynamic_shared_memory doesn't break this API?

Reminds me of the recent parallel VACUUM bug, fixed by commit
662ba729. That involved unintialized DSM, too.

As I said at the time: we should be using Valgrind for this.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Richard Guo 2022-09-24 00:41:48 Re: BUG #17618: unnecessary filter column <> text even after adding index
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2022-09-24 00:10:41 Re: BUG #17619: AllocSizeIsValid violation in parallel hash join