On 6 November 2017 16:50, amul sul <sulamul@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Tom for the crash analysis, I think this is the same reason that
> Rajkumar's reported case[1] was crashing only with partition-wise-join = on.
> I tried to fix this crash[2] but missed the place where I have added assert
> check in the assumption that we always coming from the previous check in the
> while loop.
>
> Instead, assert check we need a similar bailout logic[2] before looping back to
> first partial plan. Attached patch does the same, I've tested with
> parallel_leader_participation = off setting as suggested by Andres, make check
> looks good except there is some obvious regression diff.
>
> 1] https://postgr.es/m/CAKcux6m+6nTO6C08kKaj-Waffvgvp-9SD3RCGStX=Mzk0gQU8g@mail.gmail.com
> 2] https://postgr.es/m/CAAJ_b975k58H+Ed4=p0vbJunwO2reOMX5CVB8_R=JmXxY3uW=Q@mail.gmail.com
>
@@ -506,7 +506,14 @@ choose_next_subplan_for_worker(AppendState *node)
node->as_whichplan = pstate->pa_next_plan++;
if (pstate->pa_next_plan >= node->as_nplans)
{
- Assert(append->first_partial_plan < node->as_nplans);
+ /* No partial plans then bail out. */
+ if (append->first_partial_plan >= node->as_nplans)
+ {
+ pstate->pa_next_plan = INVALID_SUBPLAN_INDEX;
+ node->as_whichplan = INVALID_SUBPLAN_INDEX;
+ LWLockRelease(&pstate->pa_lock);
+ return false;
+ }
pstate->pa_next_plan = append->first_partial_plan;
In the above code, the fact that we have not bailed out from the
earlier for loop means that we have already found an unfinished plan
and node->as_whichplan is set to that plan. So while setting the next
plan above for the other workers to pick, we should not return false,
nor should we set node->as_whichplan to INVALID_SUBPLAN_INDEX.
Instead, just set pa_next_plan to INVALID_SUBPLAN_INDEX. Otherwise,
the chosen plan won't get executed at all.
Thanks
-Amit Khandekar
