Re: postgres_fdw uninterruptible during connection establishment / ProcSignalBarrier

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Fujii Masao <fujii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: postgres_fdw uninterruptible during connection establishment / ProcSignalBarrier
Date: 2023-01-14 01:45:06
Message-ID: CA+hUKGLTngoe7NAWAOUut2p9uiWCKhvLfbaFJJi4p+QXeEZQ7A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 3:05 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2023-01-03 12:05:20 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > The attached patch adds libpq-be-fe-helpers.h and uses it in libpqwalreceiver,
> > dblink, postgres_fdw.
>
> > As I made libpq-be-fe-helpers.h handle reserving external fds,
> > libpqwalreceiver now does so. I briefly looked through its users without
> > seeing cases of leaking in case of errors - which would already have been bad,
> > since we'd already have leaked a libpq connection/socket.
> >
> >
> > Given the lack of field complaints and the size of the required changes, I
> > don't think we should backpatch this, even though it's pretty clearly buggy
> > as-is.
>
> Any comments on this? Otherwise I think I'll go with this approach.

+1. Not totally convinced about the location but we are free to
re-organise it any time, and the random CI failures are bad.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuo Ishii 2023-01-14 02:02:34 backup.sgml typo
Previous Message David G. Johnston 2023-01-14 01:29:00 Re: pgsql: Add new GUC createrole_self_grant.