Re: Non-robustness in pmsignal.c - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: Non-robustness in pmsignal.c
Date
Msg-id 20221008004302.mnm4qwu4wqw6ssk2@awork3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Non-robustness in pmsignal.c  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Non-robustness in pmsignal.c  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 2022-10-07 20:35:58 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > Why are we even tracking PM_CHILD_UNUSED / PM_CHILD_ASSIGNED in shared memory?
> 
> Because those flags are set by the child processes too, cf
> MarkPostmasterChildActive and MarkPostmasterChildInactive.

Only PM_CHILD_ACTIVE and PM_CHILD_WALSENDER though. We could afford another
MaxLivePostmasterChildren() sized array...


> > Are you thinking these should be backpatched?
> 
> I am, but I'm not inclined to push this immediately before a wrap.

+1


> If we intend to wrap 15.0 on Monday then I'll wait till after that.
> OTOH, if we slip that a week, I'd be okay with pushing in the
> next day or two.

Makes sense.

- Andres



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Non-robustness in pmsignal.c
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Non-robustness in pmsignal.c