| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Non-robustness in pmsignal.c |
| Date: | 2022-10-08 00:43:02 |
| Message-ID: | 20221008004302.mnm4qwu4wqw6ssk2@awork3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2022-10-07 20:35:58 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > Why are we even tracking PM_CHILD_UNUSED / PM_CHILD_ASSIGNED in shared memory?
>
> Because those flags are set by the child processes too, cf
> MarkPostmasterChildActive and MarkPostmasterChildInactive.
Only PM_CHILD_ACTIVE and PM_CHILD_WALSENDER though. We could afford another
MaxLivePostmasterChildren() sized array...
> > Are you thinking these should be backpatched?
>
> I am, but I'm not inclined to push this immediately before a wrap.
+1
> If we intend to wrap 15.0 on Monday then I'll wait till after that.
> OTOH, if we slip that a week, I'd be okay with pushing in the
> next day or two.
Makes sense.
- Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-10-08 00:49:18 | Re: Non-robustness in pmsignal.c |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-10-08 00:35:58 | Re: Non-robustness in pmsignal.c |