Обсуждение: buffer refcount leak in foreign batch insert code
Hi. We've found that in cases like the one attached, when we insert into foreign partition with batch_size set, buffer refcount leak is detected. The above example we see a dozen of similar messages: repro_small.sql:31: WARNING: buffer refcount leak: [14621] (rel=base/16718/16732, blockNum=54, flags=0x93800000 The issue was introduced in the following commit commit b676ac443b6a83558d4701b2dd9491c0b37e17c4 Author: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@postgresql.org> Date: Fri Jun 11 20:19:48 2021 +0200 Optimize creation of slots for FDW bulk inserts In this commit we avoid recreating slots for each batch. But it seems that created slots should still be cleared in the end of ExecBatchInsert(). At least the attached patch seems to fix the issue. -- Best regards, Alexander Pyhalov, Postgres Professional
Вложения
On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 01:07:03PM +0300, Alexander Pyhalov wrote: > We've found that in cases like the one attached, when we insert into foreign > partition with batch_size set, buffer refcount leak is detected. > > The above example we see a dozen of similar messages: > > repro_small.sql:31: WARNING: buffer refcount leak: [14621] > (rel=base/16718/16732, blockNum=54, flags=0x93800000 Indeed, nice repro! That's obviously wrong, I'll look into that. -- Michael
Вложения
On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 07:16:03PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 01:07:03PM +0300, Alexander Pyhalov wrote: >> We've found that in cases like the one attached, when we insert into foreign >> partition with batch_size set, buffer refcount leak is detected. >> >> The above example we see a dozen of similar messages: >> >> repro_small.sql:31: WARNING: buffer refcount leak: [14621] >> (rel=base/16718/16732, blockNum=54, flags=0x93800000 This reminds me a lot of the recent multi-insert logic added to various DDL code paths for catalogs, bref.. The number of slots ready for a batch is tracked by ri_NumSlots, and it is reset to 0 each time a batch has been processed. How about resetting the counter at the same place as the slots are cleared, at the end of ExecBatchInsert() as the same time as when the slots are cleared? I was wondering as well about resetting the slot just before copying something into ri_Slots in ExecInsert() (actually close to the slot copy), which is something that would make the operation cheaper for large batches because the last batch could be cleaned up with ExecEndModifyTable(), but this makes the code much messier when a tuple is added into one of the slots as we would need to switch back-and-forth with es_query_cxt from what I can see, because th batches are inserted before any slot initialization is done. In short, I'm okay with what's proposed here and clean up things at the same time as ri_NumSlots. Another thing was the interaction of this change with triggers (delete, insert with returning and batches to flush pending inserts, etc.), and that looked correct to me (I have plugged in some of these triggers noisy on notices on the relations of the partitions tree). Self-reminder: the tests of postgres_fdw are rather long now, perhaps these should be split into more files in the future.. The attached is what I am finishing with, with a minimal regression test added to postgres_fdw. Two partitions are enough. Alexander, what do you think? -- Michael
Вложения
On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 09:57:10AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > The attached is what I am finishing with, with a minimal regression > test added to postgres_fdw. Two partitions are enough. Well, I have gone through that again this morning, and applied the fix down to 14. The buildfarm is digesting it fine. -- Michael
Вложения
Michael Paquier писал 2023-04-25 04:30: > On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 09:57:10AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> The attached is what I am finishing with, with a minimal regression >> test added to postgres_fdw. Two partitions are enough. > > Well, I have gone through that again this morning, and applied the fix > down to 14. The buildfarm is digesting it fine. > -- > Michael Thank you. Sorry for the late response, was on vacation. -- Best regards, Alexander Pyhalov, Postgres Professional