summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/src/backend
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorMichael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>2023-04-25 09:42:19 +0900
committerMichael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>2023-04-25 09:42:19 +0900
commit806fad7573e2b44de57888e3c04eab8eec4a69a8 (patch)
tree3243aefc32dca743face3b189585d92767c272c1 /src/backend
parent1118cd37eb61e6a2428f457a8b2026a7bb3f801a (diff)
downloadpostgresql-806fad7573e2b44de57888e3c04eab8eec4a69a8.tar.gz
Fix buffer refcount leak with FDW bulk inserts
The leak would show up when using batch inserts with foreign tables included in a partition tree, as the slots used in the batch were not reset once processed. In order to fix this problem, some ExecClearTuple() are added to clean up the slots used once a batch is filled and processed, mapping with the number of slots currently in use as tracked by the counter ri_NumSlots. This buffer refcount leak has been introduced in b676ac4 with the addition of the executor facility to improve bulk inserts for FDWs, so backpatch down to 14. Alexander has provided the patch (slightly modified by me). The test for postgres_fdw comes from me, based on the test case that the author has sent in the report. Author: Alexander Pyhalov Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/b035780a740efd38dc30790c76927255@postgrespro.ru Backpatch-through: 14
Diffstat (limited to 'src/backend')
-rw-r--r--src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c10
1 files changed, 8 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
index 6aa8c03def..dc1a2ec551 100644
--- a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
+++ b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
@@ -856,7 +856,6 @@ ExecInsert(ModifyTableContext *context,
resultRelInfo->ri_PlanSlots,
resultRelInfo->ri_NumSlots,
estate, canSetTag);
- resultRelInfo->ri_NumSlots = 0;
flushed = true;
}
@@ -1261,6 +1260,14 @@ ExecBatchInsert(ModifyTableState *mtstate,
if (canSetTag && numInserted > 0)
estate->es_processed += numInserted;
+
+ /* Clean up all the slots, ready for the next batch */
+ for (i = 0; i < numSlots; i++)
+ {
+ ExecClearTuple(slots[i]);
+ ExecClearTuple(planSlots[i]);
+ }
+ resultRelInfo->ri_NumSlots = 0;
}
/*
@@ -1284,7 +1291,6 @@ ExecPendingInserts(EState *estate)
resultRelInfo->ri_PlanSlots,
resultRelInfo->ri_NumSlots,
estate, mtstate->canSetTag);
- resultRelInfo->ri_NumSlots = 0;
}
list_free(estate->es_insert_pending_result_relations);