| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PostmasterContext survives into parallel workers!? |
| Date: | 2016-08-03 17:55:08 |
| Message-ID: | 20160803175508.GA648317@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> It looks to me like the reason for it is simply not having bothered to
> >> copy the rw->rw_worker data to somewhere that would survive deletion
> >> of the PostmasterContext. I wonder though if anyone remembers a more
> >> fundamental reason? Surely the bgworker is not supposed to touch any
> >> of the rest of the BackgroundWorkerList?
>
> > I just checked BDR, which is the more complex code using workers I know
> > of, and I don't see any reason why this cannot be changed.
>
> The attached patch passes "make check-world" for me. Can you check it
> against BDR?
Just checked. It works fine.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua Bay | 2016-08-03 18:02:06 | Re: Way to access LSN (for each transaction) by directly talking to postgres? |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2016-08-03 17:55:02 | Re: New version numbering practices |