Re: [GENERAL] pgstattuple triggered checkpoint failure and database outage?
- From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
- To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
- Cc: Stuart Bishop <stuart(at)stuartbishop(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Subject: Re: [GENERAL] pgstattuple triggered checkpoint failure and database outage?
- Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:57:35 +0300
- Message-id: <49D22F5F.8050302@enterprisedb.com> <text/plain>
Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
A quick look at contrib/pgstattuple shows that it makes no effort
whatsoever to avoid reading temp tables belonging to other sessions.
contrib/pageinspect has the same bug. Not surprising as it was largely
inspired by pgstattuple.
Given the seriousness of the consequences (forced database shutdown is
no fun), I wonder whether we should install some low-level defense
against this type of problem; ie teach ReadBuffer to throw error if
asked to read a block from someone else's temp table.
That would be nice.
This isn't entirely trivial because it's presently expensive to
determine whether a table is someone else's temp table: it takes a
system catalog lookup. I'm not even sure that it'd be safe to have
the relcache do it and cache the result --- it could lead to infinite
recursion. (At the very least this would promote pg_namespace into
the set of critical relcache entries.)
You could hard code that PG_CATALOG_NAMESPACE is not a temp namespace. I
believe that would stop the recursion. Would that avoid promoting
pg_namespace to critical status, too?
The solution that seems most practical to me is to add a bool column
to pg_class indicating "this is a temp table". Then, if that flag
is set but it's not our own temp table (which we can tell easily),
refuse to read. However, a patch of that size would take a little
while to develop, and I'm not entirely sure it's worth the trouble.
I can't remember having seen bugs of this type before.
In addition to the one Alvaro mentioned, I recall having problems with
this when working on the patch to allow temporary file access with two
phase commit in autumn.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index