Re: pg15b1: FailedAssertion("val > base", File: "...src/include/utils/relptr.h", Line: 67, PID: 30485)
От | Kyotaro Horiguchi |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg15b1: FailedAssertion("val > base", File: "...src/include/utils/relptr.h", Line: 67, PID: 30485) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20220601.114201.1536897005260401301.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg15b1: FailedAssertion("val > base", File: "...src/include/utils/relptr.h", Line: 67, PID: 30485) (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg15b1: FailedAssertion("val > base", File: "...src/include/utils/relptr.h", Line: 67, PID: 30485)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
At Tue, 31 May 2022 16:10:05 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote in tgl> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: tgl> > Yeah, so when I created this stuff in the first place, I figured that tgl> > it wasn't a problem if we reserved relptr == 0 to mean a NULL pointer, tgl> > because you would never have a relative pointer pointing to the tgl> > beginning of a DSM, because it would probably always start with a tgl> > dsm_toc. But when Thomas made it so that DSM allocations could happen tgl> > in the main shared memory segment, that ceased to be true. This tgl> > example happened not to break because we never use relptr_access() on tgl> > fpm->self. We do use fpm_segment_base(), but that accidentally fails tgl> > to break, because instead of using relptr_access() it drills right tgl> > through the abstraction and doesn't have any kind of special case for tgl> > 0. tgl> tgl> Seems like that in itself is a a lousy idea. Either the code should tgl> respect the abstraction, or it shouldn't be declaring the variable tgl> as a relptr in the first place. tgl> tgl> > So we can fix this by: tgl> > 1. Using a relative pointer value other than 0 to represent a null tgl> > pointer. Andres suggested (Size) -1. tgl> > 2. Not storing the free page manager for the DSM in the main shared tgl> > memory segment at byte offset 0. tgl> > 3. Dropping the assertion while loudly singing "la la la la la la". tgl> tgl> I'm definitely down on #3, because that just leaves the ambiguity tgl> in place to bite somewhere else in future. #1 would work as long tgl> as nobody expects memset-to-zero to produce null relptrs, but that tgl> doesn't seem very nice either. tgl> tgl> On the whole, wasting MAXALIGN worth of memory seems like the least bad tgl> alternative, but I wonder if we ought to do it right here as opposed tgl> to somewhere in the DSM code proper. Why is this DSM space not like tgl> other DSM spaces in starting with a TOC? tgl> tgl> regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: