| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Non-robustness in pmsignal.c |
| Date: | 2022-10-08 00:49:18 |
| Message-ID: | 3443537.1665190158@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> 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...
Oh, I see what you mean --- one private and one public array.
Maybe that makes more sense than what I did, not sure.
>> I am, but I'm not inclined to push this immediately before a wrap.
> +1
OK, I'll take a little more time on this and maybe code it up as
you suggest.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ranier Vilela | 2022-10-08 01:50:13 | Re: Avoid mix char with bool type in comparisons |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-10-08 00:43:02 | Re: Non-robustness in pmsignal.c |