> * the startup/shutdown hooks will be installed in the postmaster
> process, but the patch expects them to be executed in a child process.
> I think nothing will happen.
OK, I figured out what is happening there: the patch makes it work by
means of this expedient:
diff -cprN HEAD/src/backend/storage/lmgr/proc.c pg_stat_statements/src/backend/storage/lmgr/proc.c
*** HEAD/src/backend/storage/lmgr/proc.c 2008-12-10 02:03:02.366590000 +0900
--- pg_stat_statements/src/backend/storage/lmgr/proc.c 2008-12-26 14:51:58.062500000 +0900
*** 381,386 ****
--- 381,390 ----
if (MyProc != NULL)
elog(ERROR, "you already exist");
+ #ifdef EXEC_BACKEND
* We use the ProcStructLock to protect assignment and releasing of
* AuxiliaryProcs entries.
I find this mighty Rube Goldbergian. We have a startup hook which is
declared in include/storage/ipc.h, but defined and called in bootstrap.c
(whence it will actually be executed down inside the startup process).
We have a shutdown hook which is also declared in include/storage/ipc.h,
but defined and called in bgwriter.c (executed in the bgwriter process,
of course). And to make those hooks work in the EXEC_BACKEND case, we
have a kluge inserted in proc.c, miles away from where the existing
process_shared_preload_libraries() calls are (in postmaster.c), and with
extremely high probability of someday resulting in duplicate preload
operations if the postmaster.c code gets shuffled.
I don't really care for the idea of initializing the pg_stat_statements
shared memory down inside the startup process. All the rest of shared
memory is initialized by the postmaster process itself, and I think
pg_stat_statements should probably work the same way. Normally I am
against having more functionality in the postmaster than absolutely
necessary, but I don't see any robustness loss in this situation: if we
have the pg_stat_statements init code in the startup subprocess, and it
dies, we'll abort startup anyway. So we might as well run it directly
in the postmaster. I think the right place is probably at the bottom of
CreateSharedMemoryAndSemaphores(). This will serve two purposes: to
create the pg_stat_statements shared memory when run in the postmaster,
or to re-attach to it when starting an EXEC_BACKEND child. The existing
coding in the patch that will try to create or attach to the shared
memory at any old random instant ought to go away --- if one of these
functions is called and doesn't find the pgss shared memory pointer
ready-to-go, it should error out or return quietly as appropriate.
That would indicate that pg_stat_statements.so got loaded into an
already-running backend, which means that the shared memory situation
can't possibly be right.
As for the shutdown hook, I don't think we need it at all in this
design. When loaded into the postmaster process, pg_stat_statements can
insert itself into the on_proc_exit or on_shmem_exit hook lists ... it
doesn't need a private hook.
BTW, as for the question of where to call
process_shared_preload_libraries: we currently have postmaster.c doing
this for itself, and when spawning a regular backend child in the
EXEC_BACKEND case. We don't do it for other child process types;
which is the omission that Itagaki-san tried to work around with
the above diff hunk. You could argue that this is a case of premature
optimization (a/k/a the root of all evil). I think the idea was that
we'd not possibly need any loadable libraries installed in special child
processes --- but that seems more than a little bit dubious if you
think about a loadable library whose goal is to monitor system activity,
as opposed to implementing some SQL-callable functionality. Moreover
it fails to duplicate what will happen in the non-EXEC_BACKEND case;
all child processes will inherit loadable libraries then. So I'm
thinking that Itagaki-san had the right idea in wanting to make
auxiliary processes load libraries, just the wrong implementation.
The right way to make that happen is to rearrange the coding in
SubPostmasterMain() so that process_shared_preload_libraries is
done in all cases, just after the read_nondefault_variables call.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-01-03 03:30:31|
|Subject: Re: Significantly larger toast tables on 8.4? |
|Previous:||From: Greg Stark||Date: 2009-01-03 03:02:32|
|Subject: Re: posix_fadvise v22|