Re: weird hash plan cost, starting with pg10

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Thomas Munro
Тема Re: weird hash plan cost, starting with pg10
Дата
Msg-id CA+hUKGKC3Wzkq3bB0fpYx3H=AZWG6GnU5BcsuEaCYdwQbEY3vA@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: weird hash plan cost, starting with pg10  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: weird hash plan cost, starting with pg10  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 6:01 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > While messing with EXPLAIN on a query emitted by pg_dump, I noticed that
> > current Postgres 10 emits weird bucket/batch/memory values for certain
> > hash nodes:
>
> >                          ->  Hash  (cost=0.11..0.11 rows=10 width=12) (actual time=0.002..0.002 rows=1 loops=8)
> >                                Buckets: 2139062143  Batches: 2139062143  Memory Usage: 8971876904722400kB
> >                                ->  Function Scan on unnest init_1  (cost=0.01..0.11 rows=10 width=12) (actual
time=0.001..0.001rows=1 loops=8)
 
>
> Looks suspiciously like uninitialized memory ...

I think "hashtable" might have been pfree'd before
ExecHashGetInstrumentation() ran, because those numbers look like
CLOBBER_FREED_MEMORY's pattern:

>>> hex(2139062143)
'0x7f7f7f7f'
>>> hex(8971876904722400 / 1024)
'0x7f7f7f7f7f7'

Maybe there is something wrong with the shutdown order of nested subplans.



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Alvaro Herrera
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Option to dump foreign data in pg_dump
Следующее
От: Teja Mupparti
Дата:
Сообщение: Corruption during WAL replay