Hi!

...

...

...

...

"Guilhem" == Guilhem Bichot writes:

<cut>

...

+++ b/storage/maria/ma_close.c 2009-02-01 07:29:56 +0000 @@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ int maria_close(register MARIA_HA *info) MARIA_STATE_HISTORY_CLOSED *history; /* Here we ignore the unlikely case that we don't have memory to - store the case. In the worst case what happens is that any transaction + store the state. In the worst case what happens is that any transaction that tries to access this table will get a wrong status information. */ if ((history= (MARIA_STATE_HISTORY_CLOSED *) @@ -166,6 +166,8 @@ int maria_close(register MARIA_HA *info) if (my_hash_insert(&maria_stored_state, (uchar*) history)) my_free(history, MYF(0)); } + /* Marker for concurrent checkpoint */ + share->state_history= 0; } } pthread_mutex_unlock(&THR_LOCK_maria);

Guilhem> So, what was the scenario? Guilhem> I imagined this one: Thread1 has just closed the table, but Thread2 had Guilhem> started a checkpoint, so Thread1 leaves the share in existence; Thread2 Guilhem> looks at share->state_history, but why would that point to freed memory? Guilhem> Is it because there is a Thread3 which did this freeing? No, the problem happens with only two threads. T1 one goes into the above code and creates a history entry that points to share->state_history. In checkpoint thread we will then execute the following code: _ma_remove_not_visible_states_with_lock(share, FALSE); Which uses share->state_history entry and may even free it. If free happens, we are likely to get a crash as history entry now points to freed memory. Regards, Monty