RE: [HACKERS] Sure enough, SI buffer overrun is broken - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Hiroshi Inoue
Subject RE: [HACKERS] Sure enough, SI buffer overrun is broken
Date
Msg-id NDBBIJLOILGIKBGDINDFGEGFCCAA.Inoue@tpf.co.jp
Whole thread Raw
In response to Sure enough, SI buffer overrun is broken  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Sure enough, SI buffer overrun is broken
List pgsql-hackers
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
> [mailto:owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org]On Behalf Of Tom Lane
> 
> I built the current sources with MAXNUMMESSAGES set to 32 in
> src/include/storage/sinvaladt.h.  The regular regress tests
> run OK, with just a few NOTICEs about 'cache state reset'
> and 'SI buffer overflow' inserted in the normal outputs
> (as you'd expect, if SI overrun occurs).
> 
> However, the parallel tests crash spectacularly, with weird errors
> and Assert() coredumps.

Unfortunately,I don't understand the cause yet.
The cause may be not unique.

Is the call RelationCacheInvalidate(false not true) in ResetSys-
temCaches() right ?  Relation descriptors would be destoryed if 
ResetSystemCaches() occurs in CommandConterIncrement().
Recent change setheapoverride -> CommandCounterIncrement
may need reopen of relations after CommandCounterIncrement.     
static void
ResetSystemCaches()
{ResetSystemCache();RelationCacheInvalidate(false);                  ^^^^^^^^
}

I changed false ->  true and tried.
Crash decreased but still occurs.

> Some of the unexpected messages in the
> postmaster log are:
> 
> NOTICE:  LockRelease: locktable lookup failed, no lock

I have seen this NOTICE only once or twice.
This seems because of setting MyProc->xid to InvalidTransa
ctionId in CommitTransaction() and AbortTransaction().
There's a little time until AtCommit(Abort)_Locks.
I have no idea to solve this now.

Regards.

Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue@tpf.co.jp


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Meskes
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] CVS problem
Next
From: "Hiroshi Inoue"
Date:
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Sure enough, SI buffer overrun is broken