Jim Nasby <[email protected]> writes:
> On 1/26/15 6:11 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
>> Fwiw I think our experience is that bugs where buffers are unpinned get
>> exposed pretty quickly in production. I suppose the same might not be true
>> for rarely called codepaths or in cases where the buffers are usually
>> already pinned.
> Yeah, that's what I was thinking. If there's some easy way to correctly
> associate pins with specific code paths (owners?) then maybe it's worth doing
> so; but I don't think it's worth much effort.
If you have a working set larger than shared_buffers, then yeah it's
likely that reference-after-unpin bugs would manifest pretty quickly.
This does not necessarily translate into something reproducible or
debuggable, however; and besides that you'd really rather that such
bugs not get into the field in the first place.
The point of my Valgrind proposal was to provide a mechanism that would
have a chance of catching such bugs in a *development* context, and
provide some hint of where in the codebase the fault is, too.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
