| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PostmasterContext survives into parallel workers!? |
| Date: | 2016-08-02 18:38:19 |
| Message-ID: | 758.1470163099@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> It looks to me like the reason for it is simply not having bothered to
>> copy the rw->rw_worker data to somewhere that would survive deletion
>> of the PostmasterContext. I wonder though if anyone remembers a more
>> fundamental reason? Surely the bgworker is not supposed to touch any
>> of the rest of the BackgroundWorkerList?
> I just checked BDR, which is the more complex code using workers I know
> of, and I don't see any reason why this cannot be changed.
The attached patch passes "make check-world" for me. Can you check it
against BDR?
(I'd be hesitant to back-patch it in any case, but I think it's okay for
HEAD unless we can easily find something it breaks.)
regards, tom lane
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| no-postmaster-context-in-bgworkers.patch | text/x-diff | 1.1 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Karan Sikka | 2016-08-02 18:45:10 | Re: TODO item: Implement Boyer-Moore searching in LIKE queries |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-08-02 18:36:42 | Re: Increasing timeout of poll_query_until for TAP tests |