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

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: [HACKERS] possible self-deadlock window after badProcessStartupPacket
Date
Msg-id 20180719204706.wtrkhcnuroblxrdg@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] possible self-deadlock window after badProcessStartupPacket  (Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2018-07-19 15:44:23 -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 03:42:46PM -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 01:38:52PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > 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.
> 
> Hmm, it would have perf impact, yes.  Could the postmaster keep a pipe
> to all the backend processes and do reporting for them?

No, postmaster doesn't have sockets open to the client.


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] possible self-deadlock window after badProcessStartupPacket
Next
From: Nico Williams
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] possible self-deadlock window after badProcessStartupPacket