Re: Memory-Bounded Hash Aggregation - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Adam Lee
Subject Re: Memory-Bounded Hash Aggregation
Date
Msg-id 20200220054719.GB4389@earth.local
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Memory-Bounded Hash Aggregation  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 08:16:36PM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> 5) Assert(nbuckets > 0);
> ... 
> This however quickly fails on this assert in BuildTupleHashTableExt (see
> backtrace1.txt):
> 
>   Assert(nbuckets > 0);
> 
> The value is computed in hash_choose_num_buckets, and there seem to be
> no protections against returning bogus values like 0. So maybe we should
> return
> 
>   Min(nbuckets, 1024)
> 
> or something like that, similarly to hash join. OTOH maybe it's simply
> due to agg_refill_hash_table() passing bogus values to the function?
> 
> 
> 6) Another thing that occurred to me was what happens to grouping sets,
> which we can't spill to disk. So I did this:
> 
>   create table t2 (a int, b int, c int);
> 
>   -- run repeatedly, until there are about 20M rows in t2 (1GB)
>   with tx as (select array_agg(a) as a, array_agg(b) as b
>                 from (select a, b from t order by random()) foo),
>        ty as (select array_agg(a) AS a
>                 from (select a from t order by random()) foo)
>   insert into t2 select unnest(tx.a), unnest(ty.a), unnest(tx.b)
>     from tx, ty;
> 
>   analyze t2;
> ...
> 
> which fails with segfault at execution time:
> 
>   tuplehash_start_iterate (tb=0x18, iter=iter@entry=0x2349340)
>   870        for (i = 0; i < tb->size; i++)
>   (gdb) bt
>   #0  tuplehash_start_iterate (tb=0x18, iter=iter@entry=0x2349340)
>   #1  0x0000000000654e49 in agg_retrieve_hash_table_in_memory ...
> 
> That's not surprising, because 0x18 pointer is obviously bogus. I guess
> this is simply an offset 18B added to a NULL pointer?

I did some investigation, have you disabled the assert when this panic
happens? If so, it's the same issue as "5) nbucket == 0", which passes a
zero size to allocator when creates that endup-with-0x18 hashtable.

Sorry my testing env goes weird right now, haven't reproduced it yet.

-- 
Adam Lee



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_regress cleans up tablespace twice.
Next
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: Improve heavyweight locks instead of building new lock managers?