On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 06:48:05PM -0500, Jerry Sievers wrote:
Greetings Hackers.
We have a reproduceable case of $subject that issues a backtrace such as
seen below.
The query that I'd prefer to sanitize before sending is <30 lines of at
a glance, not terribly complex logic.
It nonetheless dies hard after a few seconds of running and as expected,
results in an automatic all-backend restart.
Please advise on how to proceed. Thanks!
bt
#0 initscan (scan=scan@entry=0x55d7a7daa0b0, key=0x0,
keep_startblock=keep_startblock@entry=1 '\001')
at
/build/postgresql-9.6-5O8OLM/postgresql-9.6-9.6.14/build/../src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c:233
#1 0x000055d7a72fa8d0 in heap_rescan (scan=0x55d7a7daa0b0, key=key@entry=0x0)
at
/build/postgresql-9.6-5O8OLM/postgresql-9.6-9.6.14/build/../src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c:1529
#2 0x000055d7a7451fef in ExecReScanSeqScan (node=node@entry=0x55d7a7d85100) at
/build/postgresql-9.6-5O8OLM/postgresql-9.6-9.6.14/build/../src/backend/executor/nodeSeqscan.c:280
#3 0x000055d7a742d36e in ExecReScan (node=0x55d7a7d85100) at
/build/postgresql-9.6-5O8OLM/postgresql-9.6-9.6.14/build/../src/backend/executor/execAmi.c:158
#4 0x000055d7a7445d38 in ExecReScanGather (node=node@entry=0x55d7a7d84d30) at
/build/postgresql-9.6-5O8OLM/postgresql-9.6-9.6.14/build/../src/backend/executor/nodeGather.c:475
#5 0x000055d7a742d255 in ExecReScan (node=0x55d7a7d84d30) at
/build/postgresql-9.6-5O8OLM/postgresql-9.6-9.6.14/build/../src/backend/executor/execAmi.c:166
#6 0x000055d7a7448673 in ExecReScanHashJoin (node=node@entry=0x55d7a7d84110)
at
/build/postgresql-9.6-5O8OLM/postgresql-9.6-9.6.14/build/../src/backend/executor/nodeHashjoin.c:1019
#7 0x000055d7a742d29e in ExecReScan (node=node@entry=0x55d7a7d84110) at
/build/postgresql-9.6-5O8OLM/postgresql-9.6-9.6.14/build/../src/backend/executor/execAmi.c:226
<about 30 lines omitted>
Hmmm, that means it's crashing here:
if (scan->rs_parallel != NULL)
scan->rs_nblocks = scan->rs_parallel->phs_nblocks; <--- here
else
scan->rs_nblocks = RelationGetNumberOfBlocks(scan->rs_rd);
But clearly, scan is valid (otherwise it'd crash on the if condition),
and scan->rs_parallel must me non-NULL. Which probably means the pointer
is (no longer) valid.
Could it be that the rs_parallel DSM disappears on rescan, or something
like that?
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
