Re: Remove pthread_is_threaded_np() checks in postmaster

From: "Tristan Partin" <tristan(at)neon(dot)tech>
To: "Andres Freund" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Alexander Bayandin" <alexander(at)neon(dot)tech>
Subject: Re: Remove pthread_is_threaded_np() checks in postmaster
Date: 2024-01-23 23:26:19
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue Jan 23, 2024 at 4:23 PM CST, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
> On 2024-01-23 15:50:11 -0600, Tristan Partin wrote:
> > What is keeping us from using pthread_sigmask(3) instead of sigprocmask(2)?
> We would need to make sure to compile with threading support everywhere. One
> issue is that on some platforms things get slower once you actually start
> using pthreads.

What are examples of these reduced performance platforms?

From reading the files, it seems like building with
threading enabled is the future, so should we just rip the band-aid off
for 17?

> > If an extension can guarantee that threads that get launched by it don't
> > interact with anything Postgres-related, would that be enough to protect
> > from any fork(2) related issues?
> A fork() while threads are running is undefined behavior IIRC, and undefined
> behavior isn't limited to a single thread. You'd definitely need to use
> pthread_sigprocmask etc to address that aspect alone.

If you can find a resource that explains the UB, I would be very
interested to read that. I found a SO[0] answer that made it seem like
this actually wasn't the case.


Tristan Partin
Neon (

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2024-01-23 23:32:08 Re: [PATCH] Add native windows on arm64 support
Previous Message Tom Lane 2024-01-23 22:33:34 Re: Support TZ format code in to_timestamp()