Re: [HACKERS] possible self-deadlock window after bad ProcessStartupPacket

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 20:44:23
Message-ID: 20180719204422.GQ9712@localhost
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 03:42:46PM -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 01:38:52PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > 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.

Hmm, it would have perf impact, yes. Could the postmaster keep a pipe
to all the backend processes and do reporting for them?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2018-07-19 20:46:12 Re: [HACKERS] possible self-deadlock window after bad ProcessStartupPacket
Previous Message Nico Williams 2018-07-19 20:42:46 Re: [HACKERS] possible self-deadlock window after bad ProcessStartupPacket