Re: BUG #12918: Segfault in BackendIdGetTransactionIds
От | Stephen Frost |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #12918: Segfault in BackendIdGetTransactionIds |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20150330165116.GD3663@tamriel.snowman.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #12918: Segfault in BackendIdGetTransactionIds (Vladimir Borodin <root@simply.name>) |
Список | pgsql-bugs |
* Vladimir Borodin (root@simply.name) wrote: > > 30 =D0=BC=D0=B0=D1=80=D1=82=D0=B0 2015 =D0=B3., =D0=B2 19:44, Stephen F= rost <sfrost@snowman.net> =D0=BD=D0=B0=D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BB(=D0=B0= ): > > * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us <mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) wrote: > >> root@simply.name writes: > >>> After upgrading from 9.3.6 to 9.4.1 (both installed from packages on > >>> yum.postgresql.org) we have started getting segfaults of different ba= ckends. > >>> Backtraces of all coredumps look similar: > >>> (gdb) bt > >>> #0 0x000000000066bf9b in BackendIdGetTransactionIds (backendID=3D<va= lue > >>> optimized out>, xid=3D0x7f2a1b714798, xmin=3D0x7f2a1b71479c) at sinva= ladt.c:426 > >>> #1 0x00000000006287f4 in pgstat_read_current_status () at pgstat.c:2= 871 > >>> #2 0x0000000000628879 in pgstat_fetch_stat_numbackends () at pgstat.= c:2342 > >>=20 > >> Hmm ... looks to me like BackendIdGetTransactionIds is simply busted. > >> It supposes that there are no inactive entries in the sinval array > >> within the range 0 .. lastBackend. But there can be, in which case > >> dereferencing stateP->proc crashes. The reason it's hard to reproduce > >> is the relatively narrow window between where pgstat_read_current_stat= us > >> saw the backend as active and where we're inspecting its sinval entry. > >=20 > > As an immediate short-term workaround, from what I can tell,=20 > > disabling calls to pg_stat_activity, and pg_stat_database (views), and > > pg_stat_get_activity, pg_stat_get_backend_idset, and > > pg_stat_get_db_numbackends (functions) should prevent triggering this > > bug. >=20 > I suppose, pg_stat_replication should not be asked too. We have already d= one that on most critical databases but it is hard to be blind :( Ah, yes, not sure where I dropped that; it was in my initial list but didn't make it into the final email. I would expect a fix to be included in the next point release, hopefully released in the next couple of months. Thanks! Stephen
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: