| From: | Nico Williams <nico(at)cryptonector(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jimmy Yih <jyih(at)pivotal(dot)io>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] possible self-deadlock window after bad ProcessStartupPacket |
| Date: | 2018-07-19 20:42:46 |
| Message-ID: | 20180719204245.GP9712@localhost |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 01:38:52PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-07-19 15:27:06 -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> > No, the other thread does NOT continue to do whatever -- it
> > blocks/sleeps forever waiting for the coming exit(3).
> >
> > I.e., quickdie() would look like this:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > and the thread would basically do:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > This use of threads does not require any changes to the rest of the
> > codebase.
>
> Uhm, this'd already require a fair bit of threadsafety. Like at least
> all of the memory allocator / context code. Nor is having threads
> around unproblematic for subprocesses that are forked off. Nor does
> this account for the portability work.
Yes, but that's in libc. None of that is in the PG code itself.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nico Williams | 2018-07-19 20:44:23 | Re: [HACKERS] possible self-deadlock window after bad ProcessStartupPacket |
| Previous Message | 'Andres Freund' | 2018-07-19 20:41:22 | Re: Recovery performance of standby for multiple concurrent truncates on large tables |