Re: Refactoring backend fork+exec code

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tristan Partin <tristan(at)neon(dot)tech>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Refactoring backend fork+exec code
Date: 2023-11-30 20:31:29
Message-ID: 20231130203129.ukiozxjmcmxkzrsj@awork3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2023-11-30 12:44:33 -0600, Tristan Partin wrote:
> > + /*
> > + * Set reference point for stack-depth checking. This might seem
> > + * redundant in !EXEC_BACKEND builds; but it's not because the postmaster
> > + * launches its children from signal handlers, so we might be running on
> > + * an alternative stack. XXX still true?
> > + */
> > + (void) set_stack_base();
>
> Looks like there is still this XXX left. Can't say I completely understand
> the second sentence either.

We used to start some child processes of postmaster in signal handlers. That
was fixed in

commit 7389aad6366
Author: Thomas Munro <tmunro(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Date: 2023-01-12 12:34:23 +1300

Use WaitEventSet API for postmaster's event loop.

In some cases signal handlers run on a separate stack, which meant that the
set_stack_base() we did in postmaster would yield a completely bogus stack
depth estimation. So this comment should likely have been removed. Thomas?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2023-11-30 20:38:03 Re: GUC names in messages
Previous Message Andres Freund 2023-11-30 20:26:48 Re: Refactoring backend fork+exec code