| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: get_controlfile() can leak fds in the backend |
| Date: | 2019-02-28 00:50:01 |
| Message-ID: | 20190228005001.m4rcjoht2azuerir@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2019-02-27 11:50:17 +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Note that my concern is not about the page size, but rather that as more
> commands may change the cluster status by editing the control file, it would
> be better that a postmaster does not start while a pg_rewind or enable
> checksum or whatever is in progress, and currently there is a possible race
> condition between the read and write that can induce an issue, at least
> theoretically.
Seems odd to bring this up in this thread, it really has nothing to do
with the topic. If we were to want to do more here, ISTM the right
approach would use the postmaster pid file, not the control file.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-02-28 00:54:45 | Re: get_controlfile() can leak fds in the backend |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-02-28 00:49:59 | Re: get_controlfile() can leak fds in the backend |