Re: Shortcoming in CLOBBER_FREED_MEMORY coverage: disk buffer pointers
От | Jim Nasby |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Shortcoming in CLOBBER_FREED_MEMORY coverage: disk buffer pointers |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 54C81196.8000509@BlueTreble.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Shortcoming in CLOBBER_FREED_MEMORY coverage: disk buffer pointers (Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>) |
Ответы |
Re: Shortcoming in CLOBBER_FREED_MEMORY coverage: disk buffer pointers
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/26/15 6:11 PM, Greg Stark wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com <mailto:Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com>> wrote: > > But one backend can effectively "pin" a buffer more than once, no? If so, then ISTM there's some risk that code pathA pins and forgets to unpin, but path B accidentally unpins for A. > > > The danger is that there's a codepath that refers to memory it doesn't have a pin on but that there is no actual test inour regression suite that doesn't actually have a second pin on the same buffer. If there is in fact no reachable codepath at all without the second pin then there's no active bug, only a bad coding practice. But if there are code pathsthat we just aren't testing then that's a real bug. > > IIRC CLOBBER_FREED_MEMORY only affects palloc'd blocks. Do we not have a mode that automatically removes any buffer assoon as it's not pinned? That seems like it would be a valuable addition. By setting BufferDesc.tag to 0? On a related note... I'm confused by this part of UnpinBuffer. How is refcount ending up > 0?? Assert(ref->refcount > 0);ref->refcount--;if (ref->refcount == 0){ /* I'd better not still hold any locks on the buffer*/ Assert(!LWLockHeldByMe(buf->content_lock)); Assert(!LWLockHeldByMe(buf->io_in_progress_lock)); LockBufHdr(buf); /* Decrement the shared reference count */ Assert(buf->refcount > 0); buf->refcount--; BTW, I certainly see no evidence of CLOBBER_FREED_MEMORY coming into play here. > Fwiw I think our experience is that bugs where buffers are unpinned get exposed pretty quickly in production. I supposethe same might not be true for rarely called codepaths or in cases where the buffers are usually already pinned. Yeah, that's what I was thinking. If there's some easy way to correctly associate pins with specific code paths (owners?)then maybe it's worth doing so; but I don't think it's worth much effort. -- Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: