Re: BUG #17619: AllocSizeIsValid violation in parallel hash join
От | Masahiko Sawada |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #17619: AllocSizeIsValid violation in parallel hash join |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAD21AoAwTv5Ydun+UcjxLVYrmcROvwrQBvVURxGCw5sShePw3A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | BUG #17619: AllocSizeIsValid violation in parallel hash join (PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #17619: AllocSizeIsValid violation in parallel hash join
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 6:17 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 12:15 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I believe that Thomas was going to do something like this anyway. I'm > > > happy to leave it up to him, but I can pursue this separately if that > > > makes sense. > > > > Why not clobber "lower down" in dsm_create(), as I showed? You don't > > have to use the table-of-contents mechanism to use DSM memory. > > I have no strong feelings either way. That approach might well be better. > > It might even be useful to do both together. The redundancy probably > wouldn't hurt, and might even help in the future (it might not stay > redundant forever). We don't necessarily need to worry too much about > added cycles for something like this. Just as long as it's not > *completely* gratuitous. +1 I think we can clobber the memory also in dsm_deatch() if the memory comes from the pool configured by min_dynamic_shared_memory. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: