On 2017-09-19 13:00:33 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > That'd not be that a crazy amount of
> > shared memory that'd need to be touched in shared memory, ...
>
> You mean, in the postmaster?
Yes. We try to avoid touch shmem there, but it's not like we're
succeeding fully. See e.g. the pgstat_get_crashed_backend_activity()
calls (which do rely on shmem being ok to some extent), pmsignal,
BackgroundWorkerStateChange(), ...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
