On 1/27/15 5:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby writes:
On 1/26/15 6:11 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
Fwiw I think our experience is that bugs where buffers are unpinned get exposed
pretty quickly in production. I suppose the same might not be true for rarely
called codepaths or in cases where the buf
Jim Nasby writes:
> On 1/26/15 6:11 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
>> Fwiw I think our experience is that bugs where buffers are unpinned get
>> exposed pretty quickly in production. I suppose the same might not be true
>> for rarely called codepaths or in cases where the buffers are usually
>> already
On 1/26/15 6:11 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Jim Nasby mailto:jim.na...@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 path A pins and forgets to unpin, but path B
accidenta
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Jim Nasby
wrote:
> But one backend can effectively "pin" a buffer more than once, no? If so,
> then ISTM there's some risk that code path A pins and forgets to unpin, but
> path B accidentally unpins for A.
>
The danger is that there's a codepath that refers to
On 1/26/15 4:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby writes:
On 1/24/15 3:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Another idea is to teach Valgrind that whenever a backend reduces its
pin count on a shared buffer to zero, that buffer should become undefined
memory.
Shouldn't this technically tie in with Resour
Jim Nasby writes:
> On 1/24/15 3:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Another idea is to teach Valgrind that whenever a backend reduces its
>> pin count on a shared buffer to zero, that buffer should become undefined
>> memory.
>
> Shouldn't this technically tie in with ResourceOwners?
No. ResourceOwner
On 1/24/15 3:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Another idea is to teach Valgrind that whenever a backend reduces its
pin count on a shared buffer to zero, that buffer should become undefined
memory.
Shouldn't this technically tie in with ResourceOwners? If a pointer takes the
pin count from 1 to 2, the
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Another idea is to teach Valgrind that whenever a backend reduces its
>> pin count on a shared buffer to zero, that buffer should become undefined
>> memory.
> That should be fairly straightforward to implement.
>> Bu
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Another idea is to teach Valgrind that whenever a backend reduces its
> pin count on a shared buffer to zero, that buffer should become undefined
> memory.
That should be fairly straightforward to implement.
> But I don't know if that will help
While the CLOBBER_FREED_MEMORY hack does a fairly good job of catching
stale pointers to already-freed memory, commit fd496129d160950e exhibits
a case that is not caught at all: RelationBuildRowSecurity was copying
*pointers into disk buffers* into backend-local relcaches. This would
of course wor
10 matches
Mail list logo
