From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Resetting PGPROC atomics in ProcessInit() |
Date: | 2018-10-27 14:36:45 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1JROSgyy2B2bTdzQTCjQqgD-WxEh8rnJ1fAeEfx1cZ0cg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 4:11 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I just noticed, while working on a patch adding things to PGPROC, that
> the group clearning patches for the proc array and clog reset atomics in
> InitProcess().
>
> I'm not a big fan of that, because it means that it's not safe to look
> at the atomics of backends that aren't currently in use. Is there any
> reason to not instead initialize them in InitProcGlobal() and just
> assert in InitProcess() that they're 0?
>
It seems the code written has followed a natural practice i.e PGPROC
members are initialized in InitProcess and ProcGlobal members (like
procArrayGroupFirst) are initialized in InitProcGlobal. For your use
case, can't you look at procArrayGroupFirst? If not, then I think we
can do what you are saying as I don't see a problem in initializing
them in InitProcGlobal.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-10-27 14:45:57 | Re: BUG #15446: Crash on ALTER TABLE |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2018-10-27 12:22:45 | Re: Comment fix and question about dshash.c |