Horton

Re: BUG #17995: Segmentation fault caused by UPDATE statement

Alexander Law <exclusion@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: zuming.jiang@inf.ethz.ch, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org, kyzevan23@mail.ru
Date: 2023-06-26T05:00:01Z
Lists: pgsql-bugs 
26.06.2023 07:27, Tom Lane wrote:
> I hadn't looked at the patch yet, but ... mcxt.c?  How is that recursive?
> Even if there is some path that recurses through that, wouldn't the
> check be better placed in a less-hot part of the loop?

In that thread Egor Chindyaskin showed proofs for stack overflow in all the
functions, that the fixes were proposed for. For example:
#MemoryContextStatsInternal
(n=1000000; printf "BEGIN;"; for ((i=1;i<=$n;i++)); do printf "SAVEPOINT s$i;"; done; printf "SELECT 
pg_log_backend_memory_contexts(pg_backend_pid())") | psql >/dev/null

Though maybe for some of those functions less-hot places could be found to
check the stack.

Best regards,
Alexander

Commits

  1. Check for interrupts and stack overflow in TParserGet().

  2. Doc: Clarify the behavior of triggers/rules in a logical subscriber.