From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PostmasterContext survives into parallel workers!? |
Date: | 2016-08-02 03:32:59 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY1zUBri87PXsJdOFiGW0prHeM4o1Q=p=dd-c+7G8-SHg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | Postg배트맨 토토SQL |
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 7:42 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> I found this apparently unresolved bug report about glibc fork()
>> inside a signal handler deadlocking:
>> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4737
>
>> I wonder if that could bite postmaster.
>
> I seriously doubt it. The key thing about the postmaster is that
> it runs with signals blocked practically everywhere. So we're not
> taking risks of a signal handler interrupting, say, malloc()
> (which seemed to be the core of at least the first example given
> in that report). This is what makes me dubious that getting rid
> of doing work in the postmaster's signal handlers is really going
> to add any noticeable increment of safety. It might make the
> code look cleaner, but I'm afraid it's going to be a lot of churn
> for not much gain.
It's not just a cosmetic issue.
See /message-id/CA+Tgmobr+Q2WgWeasdbDNefVwJkAGALxA=-VtEGNtQgL1V2Ryw@mail.gmail.com
and d0410d66037c2f3f9bee45e0a2db9e47eeba2bb4.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-08-02 03:33:53 | Re: TODO item: Implement Boyer-Moore searching in LIKE queries |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-08-02 01:39:56 | Re: MSVC pl-perl error message is not verbose enough |