From: | by Yang <mobile(dot)yang(at)outlook(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: memory leak in pgoutput |
Date: | 2024-11-18 07:00:57 |
Message-ID: | DM3PR84MB3442C5736F1207066CFBCC88E3272@DM3PR84MB3442.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Here, after freeing the tupledesc, the ExecDropSingleTupleTableSlot will still
> access the freed tupledesc->tdrefcount which is an illegal memory access.
Yes, I overlooked that.
> I think we can do something like below instead:
>
> + TupleDesc desc = entry->old_slot->tts_tupleDescriptor;
> +
> + Assert(desc->tdrefcount == -1);
> +
> ExecDropSingleTupleTableSlot(entry->old_slot);
> + FreeTupleDesc(desc);
It seems a bit odd because "entry->old_slot->tts_tupleDescriptor" is accessed
after "entry->old_slot" has been freed. I think we can avoid this by assigning
"desc" to NULL before ExecDropSingleTupleTableSlot().
```
+ TupleDesc desc = entry->old_slot->tts_tupleDescriptor;
+
+ Assert(desc->tdrefcount == -1);
+
+ FreeTupleDesc(desc);
+ desc = NULL;
ExecDropSingleTupleTableSlot(entry->old_slot);
```
By the way, this issue is introduced in 52e4f0cd472d39d. Therefore, we may need
to backport the patch to v15.
Best Regards,
Boyu Yang
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Raghu Dev Ramaiah | 2024-11-18 07:03:30 | A way to build PSQL 17.1 source on AIX platform |
Previous Message | Nisha Moond | 2024-11-18 06:54:36 | Re: DOCS - pg_replication_slot . Fix the 'inactive_since' description |