Re: [HACKERS] possible self-deadlock window after badProcessStartupPacket - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Nico Williams
Subject Re: [HACKERS] possible self-deadlock window after badProcessStartupPacket
Date
Msg-id 20180719204245.GP9712@localhost
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] possible self-deadlock window after badProcessStartupPacket  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] possible self-deadlock window after badProcessStartupPacket  (Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] possible self-deadlock window after badProcessStartupPacket  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 01:38:52PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-07-19 15:27:06 -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> > No, the other thread does NOT continue to do whatever -- it
> > blocks/sleeps forever waiting for the coming exit(3).
> > 
> > I.e., quickdie() would look like this:
> > 
> >         [...]
> > 
> > and the thread would basically do:
> > 
> >         [...]
> > 
> > This use of threads does not require any changes to the rest of the
> > codebase.
> 
> Uhm, this'd already require a fair bit of threadsafety. Like at least
> all of the memory allocator / context code.  Nor is having threads
> around unproblematic for subprocesses that are forked off.  Nor does
> this account for the portability work.

Yes, but that's in libc.  None of that is in the PG code itself.


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: 'Andres Freund'
Date:
Subject: Re: Recovery performance of standby for multiple concurrenttruncates on large tables
Next
From: Nico Williams
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] possible self-deadlock window after badProcessStartupPacket