Re: SIGSEGV in GrantLockLocal()
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SIGSEGV in GrantLockLocal() |
Дата | |
Msg-id | e836b6c1-99d6-4d8f-b5d9-24aba41621c8@iki.fi обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | SIGSEGV in GrantLockLocal() (Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: SIGSEGV in GrantLockLocal()
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 18/12/2024 08:17, Richard Guo wrote: > Recently, I've encountered a core dump several times on master, with a > backtrace like the one below. This one happened on 0f23dedc9. I was > running some fuzz testing and had started around 20 sessions > concurrently. > > (gdb) bt > #0 in GrantLockLocal at lock.c:1758 > #1 in GrantAwaitedLock at lock.c:1840 > #2 in LockErrorCleanup at proc.c:809 > #3 in AbortTransaction at xact.c:2846 > #4 in AbortCurrentTransactionInternal at xact.c:3520 > #5 in AbortCurrentTransaction at xact.c:3449 > #6 in PostgresMain at postgres.c:4535 > #7 in BackendMain at backend_startup.c:107 > #8 in postmaster_child_launch at launch_backend.c:274 > #9 in BackendStartup at postmaster.c:3391 > #10 in ServerLoop at postmaster.c:1678 > #11 in PostmasterMain at postmaster.c:1376 > #12 in main at main.c:224 > > It seems that the lock request is not granted as expected, since > locallock->lockOwners is a NULL pointer. > > (gdb) p locallock->lockOwners > $4 = (LOCALLOCKOWNER *) 0x0 > (gdb) p locallock->numLockOwners > $5 = 0 > (gdb) p locallock->maxLockOwners > $6 = 8 > > Unfortunately, I don't have a reliable way to trigger this issue. I'm > wondering if anyone has any insights into what might be happening. I don't know how that can happen, but I suspect commit 3c0fd64fec because it changed things in that area. If you can find a way to reproduce that even sporadically, that would be very helpful! -- Heikki Linnakangas Neon (https://neon.tech)
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: