Re: [HACKERS] error-handling in ReorderBufferCommit() seems somewhatbroken

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tomas Vondra
Тема Re: [HACKERS] error-handling in ReorderBufferCommit() seems somewhatbroken
Дата
Msg-id 171de158-ab30-edce-0d0e-97022d217196@2ndquadrant.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] error-handling in ReorderBufferCommit() seems somewhatbroken  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] error-handling in ReorderBufferCommit() seems somewhatbroken  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Список pgsql-hackers

On 08/30/2017 01:34 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2017-08-30 01:27:34 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> I've been investigating some failures in test_decoding regression tests,
>> and it seems to me the error-handling in ReorderBufferCommit() is
>> somewhat broken, leading to segfault crashes.
>>
>> The problematic part is this:
>>
>> PG_CATCH()
>> {
>>     /*
>>      * Force cache invalidation to happen outside of a valid transaction
>>      * to prevent catalog access as we just caught an error.
>>      */
>>     AbortCurrentTransaction();
>>
>>     /* make sure there's no cache pollution */
>>     ReorderBufferExecuteInvalidations(rb, txn);
>>
>>     ...
>>
>> }
>>
>> Triggering it trivial - just add elog(ERROR,...) at the beginning of the
>> PG_TRY() block.
> 
> That's not really a valid thing to do, you should put it after the
> BeginInternalSubTransaction()/StartTransactionCommand(). It's basically
> assumed that those won't fail - arguably they should be outside of a
> PG_TRY then, but that's a different matter.  If you start decoding
> outside of SQL failing before those will lead to rolling back the parent
> tx...
> 
> 
>> I suppose this is not quite intentional, but rather an example that
>> error-handling code is an order of magnitude more complicated to write
>> and test. I've only noticed as I'm investigating some regression
>> failures on Postgres-XL 10, which does not support subtransactions and
>> so the BeginInternalSubTransaction() call in the try branch always
>> fails, triggering the issue.
> 
> So, IIUC, there's no live problem in postgres core, besides some ugly &
> undocumented assumptions?
> 

I'm not really following your reasoning. You may very well be right that
the BeginInternalSubTransaction() example is not quite valid on postgres
core, but I don't see how that implies there can be no other errors in
the PG_TRY block. It was merely an explanation how I noticed this issue.

To make it absolutely clear, I claim that the PG_CATCH() block is
demonstrably broken as it calls AbortCurrentTransaction() and then
accesses already freed memory.

The switch in the PG_TRY() blocks includes multiple elog(ERROR) calls in
the switch, and AFAICS hitting any of them will have exactly the same
effect as failure in BeginInternalSubTransaction(). And I suppose there
many other ways to trigger an error and get into the catch block. In
other words, why would we have the block at all?

regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Thomas Munro
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification
Следующее
От: Amit Langote
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Tuple-routing for certain partitioned tables notworking as expected