Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Bitmap scans a bit broken - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Bitmap scans a bit broken
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYTHt7WUio2Kx+qbR1Uk3ufcMsvejMCDx7WB90Gf4DjDw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Bitmap scans a bit broken  (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Bitmap scans a bit broken  (David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Bitmap scans a bit broken  (Emre Hasegeli <emre@hasegeli.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I slightly modified your query to reproduce this issue.
>>
>> explain analyze select * from r1 where value<555;
>>
>> Patch is attached to fix the problem.
>
> I forgot to mention the cause of the problem.
>
> if (istate->schunkptr < istate->nchunks)
> {
>    PagetableEntry *chunk = &ptbase[idxchunks[istate->schunkptr]];
>     PagetableEntry *page = &ptbase[idxpages[istate->spageptr]];
>     BlockNumber chunk_blockno;
>
> In above if condition we have only checked istate->schunkptr <
> istate->nchunks that means we have some chunk left so we are safe to
> access idxchunks,  But just after that we are accessing
> ptbase[idxpages[istate->spageptr]] without checking that accessing
> idxpages is safe or not.
>
> tbm_iterator already handling this case, I broke it in tbm_shared_iterator.

I don't know if this is the only problem -- it would be good if David
could retest -- but it's certainly *a* problem, so committed.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Gather Merge
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] partial indexes and bitmap scans