Thank you! Glad to see that the report was useful. On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 9:33 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I wrote: > > Rafa de la Torre <rto...@carto.com> writes: > >> exc = PyErr_NewException(exception_map[i].name, base, > dict); > >> + Py_INCREF(exc); > >> PyModule_AddObject(mod, exception_map[i].classname, exc); > > > Hm. Seems like if this is a problem, the code for the other three > > exceptions is being a bit careless: it does do Py_INCREFs on them, > > but not soon enough to ensure no problems. Also, I wonder why that > > code checks for a null result from PyErr_NewException but this doesn't. > > > Good catch though. A naive person would have assumed that > > PyModule_AddObject would increment the object's refcount, but > > the Python docs say "This steals a reference to value", which > > I guess must mean that the caller is required to do it. > > For me (testing with Python 2.6.6 on RHEL6), this test case didn't result > in a server crash, but in the wrong exception object name being reported. > Tracing through it showed that a python GC was happening during the loop > adding all the exceptions to the spiexceptions module, so that some of the > exception objects went away and then were immediately reallocated as other > exception objects. The explicit gc call in the test case wasn't > necessary, because the problem happened before that. Fun fun. > > I've pushed a patch that deals with all these problems. Thanks for > the report! > > regards, tom lane > -- Rafa de la Torre rto...@carto.com
