Re: Segmentation fault on proc exit after dshash_find_or_insert
amit <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
From: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2026-01-14T23:57:36Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 12:38 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> writes: > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 6:36 PM Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> wrote > >> 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. > > I think the idea there might be to make sure that we have released > any pre-existing hold of that lock. Otherwise this could be > a self-deadlock. Hmm, good point. Though with this patch, which adds LWLockReleaseAll() at the start of shmem_exit(), we would have already released any such lock before we get to ProcKill(). But, probably best to leave ProcKill() alone given this subtlety. -- 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