Re: Segmentation fault on proc exit after dshash_find_or_insert
amit <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
From: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
To: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>
Cc: Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2026-01-14T13:56:36Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Hi Alvaro, On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 6:36 PM Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> wrote > On 2025-Dec-18, Amit Langote wrote: > > > Thanks. Updated the commit message too to be more accurate in the > > attached updated patch. > > Looks good to me. Thanks for looking. > I would add an Assert(num_held_lwlocks == 0) at the > end of LWLockReleaseAll(), to make it clear that it's idempotent (which > is important for the case where ProcKill will call it again shortly > after). Makes sense. Will do. > Are you going to push this soon? Yes, I will try tomorrow. > Looking at ProcKill, I notice that we do some LWLock ops after its > LWLockReleaseAll() call, which seems a bit silly. Why not do that right > after the "if (MyProc->lockGroupLeader != NULL)" block instead? Nothing > uses LWLocks from there on. This can be a separate commit. Just to confirm: you're suggesting moving the LWLockReleaseAll() call to after the "if (MyProc->lockGroupLeader != NULL)" block? Makes sense -- odd to release all locks right before then going ahead and acquiring one. Agreed it should be a separate commit. -- Thanks, Amit Langote
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Fix segfault from releasing locks in detached DSM segments
- f6df78173ef5 14.21 landed
- b926ff1373bb 15.16 landed
- 980b7c7369e4 16.12 landed
- 4071fe900e67 17.8 landed
- 1943ceb38842 18.2 landed
- 9cbb1d21d67e 19 (unreleased) landed