| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Release postmaster working memory context in slotsync worker |
| Date: | 2026-03-18 06:31:23 |
| Message-ID: | CAHGQGwFu0tam9i2UxRHY+mrB-0YZVfWZPheKYy5V2KfB-WxuGQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Feb 28, 2026 at 2:58 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On 2026-02-28 01:25:12 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >> Child processes do not need the postmaster's working memory context and
> >> release it at the start of their main function. However, the slotsync worker
> >> appears to have missed this step.
>
> > Obviously this inconsistency is not good. However:
> > I think we should consider *not* releasing postmaster memory. Freeing the
> > memory actually can lead to an *increase* in memory usage and a slight
> > *decrease* in connection startup performance. The reason for that is that with
> > fork, memory allocated in postmaster is handled by copy-on-write in the
> > children.
>
> Meh. I think that's optimizing for the wrong thing. To my mind the
> point of releasing that context is to be sure that child processes
> don't have access to postmaster-private data.
Okay, I've included this point in the commit message of the patch.
> Admittedly, we're not
> doing anything as drastic as zeroing out the memory, but it'll soon
> be overwritten as the child starts up and populates its caches.
Yes.
Attached is a rebased version of the patch. I'm thinking to commit it.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v2-0001-Release-postmaster-working-memory-context-in-slot.patch | application/octet-stream | 1.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | shveta malik | 2026-03-18 06:31:38 | Re: synchronized_standby_slots behavior inconsistent with quorum-based synchronous replication |
| Previous Message | zengman | 2026-03-18 06:31:03 | Re: SQL Property Graph Queries (SQL/PGQ) |