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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Non-robustness in pmsignal.c
Date
Msg-id 3441787.1665189358@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Non-robustness in pmsignal.c  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Non-robustness in pmsignal.c  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
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.

> Are you thinking these should be backpatched?

I am, but I'm not inclined to push this immediately before a wrap.
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.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Non-robustness in pmsignal.c
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Non-robustness in pmsignal.c