Re: Seg fault when processing large SPI cursor (PG9.13) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Seg fault when processing large SPI cursor (PG9.13)
Date
Msg-id 7307.1362413076@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Seg fault when processing large SPI cursor (PG9.13)  ("Fields, Zachary J. (MU-Student)" <zjfe58@mail.missouri.edu>)
Responses Re: Seg fault when processing large SPI cursor (PG9.13)  (Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Fields, Zachary J. (MU-Student)" <zjfe58@mail.missouri.edu> writes:
> I'm working on PostgreSQL 9.13 (waiting for admin to push upgrades next week), in the meanwhile, I was curious if
thereare any known bugs regarding large cursor fetches, or if I am to blame.
 
> My cursor has 400 million records, and I'm fetching in blocks of 2^17 (approx. 130K). When I fetch the next block
afterprocessing the 48,889,856th record, then the DB seg faults. It should be noted, I have processed tables with 23
million+records several times and everything appears to work great.
 

> I have watched top, and the system memory usage gets up to 97.6% (from approx 30 million records onward - then sways
upand down), but ultimately crashes when I try to get past the 48,889,856th record. I have tried odd and various block
sizes,anything greater than 2^17 crashes at the fetch that would have it surpassed 48,889,856 records, 2^16 hits the
samesweet spot, and anything less than 2^16 actually crashes slightly earlier (noted in comments in code below).
 

> To me, it appears to be an obvious memory leak,

Well, you're leaking the SPITupleTables (you should be doing
SPI_freetuptable when done with each one), so running out of memory is
not exactly surprising.  I suspect what is happening is that an
out-of-memory error is getting thrown and recovery from that is messed
up somehow.  Have you tried getting a stack trace from the crash?

I note that you're apparently using C++.  C++ in the backend is rather
dangerous, and one of the main reasons is that C++ error handling
doesn't play nice with elog/ereport error handling.  It's possible to
make it work safely but it takes a lot of attention and extra code,
which you don't seem to have here.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: Enabling Checksums
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: sql_drop Event Trigger