Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: fork/exec patch

From: Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com>
To: 'Neil Conway ' <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>,Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com>
Cc: "''pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org' '" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: fork/exec patch
Date: 2003-12-16 07:31:20
Message-ID: A02DEC4D1073D611BAE8525405FCCE2B028094@harris.memetrics.local (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
[Thanks to Tom + Bruce]

For the remaining comments...


> The number of "FIXME" or "This is ugly" comments doesn't ease my mind
> about this patch :-) How many of these issues do you plan to resolve?

All of them, as we go along. Treat this as a first step.


> - 				break;
>  
>  			case 'd':			/* debug level
>*/
>  				{
>
>Why was this change made? If you actually intend to fall through the
> case here, please make it clear via a comment.

I can't believe that got through! It is an editing mistake, pure and simple.
Thank you for catching it. [bashes head against wall]


> + #define get_tmp_backend_var_file_name(buf,id)		\
> + 		Assert(DataDir);			\
> + 		sprintf((buf),				\
> + 			"%s/%s/%s.backend_var.%d",	\
> + 			DataDir,			\
> + 			PG_TEMP_FILES_DIR,		\
> + 			PG_TEMP_FILE_PREFIX,		\
> + 			(id))
> 
> This macro needs to be enclosed in a  do {} while (0) block. Also,
> what does the "var" in the name of this macro refer to?

"var" refers to "variable". Will add a do while block in a following patch.


> + #define get_tmp_backend_var_dir(buf)		\
> + 		sprintf((buf),"%s/%s",DataDir,PG_TEMP_FILES_DIR)
> 
> This seems a little pointless, IMHO.

True.


> + static void
> [snip]
> ereport(FATAL) seems too strong, doesn't it?

Possibly.


> + 	read_var(LWLockArray,fp);
> + 	read_var(ProcStructLock,fp);
> + 	read_var(pgStatSock,fp);
> + 
> + 	/* Release file */
> + 	FreeFile(fp);
> + 	unlink(filename);
> 
> You should probably check the return value of unlink().

No. This isn't necessary (and what action would it take in any case?). If it
doesn't unlink the file, tough. A backend crash could also leave these files
on the disk. Like the other pgtmp files they'll get cleaned up on postmaster
restart.


> (circa line 335 of ipc/shmem.c:)
> [snip]
> Doesn't this function still acquire ShmemIndexLock? (i.e. why was this
comment changed?)

AFAICS this is just whitespace differences.

With the exception of that missing "break" (Bruce, I guess it goes without
saying, but could you please remove that line from the patch before
applying... and again "Thank you Neil"), these are stylistic/cosmetic and
effect the EXEC_BACKEND code only.

Would a follow-up patch to correct these, along with the next step of the
fork/exec changes, be acceptable?

Cheers,
Claudio

--- 
Certain disclaimers and policies apply to all email sent from Memetrics.
For the full text of these disclaimers and policies see 
<a
href="http://www.memetrics.com/emailpolicy.html">http://www.memetrics.com/em
ailpolicy.html</a>

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2003-12-16 07:44:43
Subject: Re: fork/exec patch
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-12-16 05:11:04
Subject: Re: fork/exec patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group