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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Non-robustness in pmsignal.c
Date
Msg-id 3443537.1665190158@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  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> 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...

Oh, I see what you mean --- one private and one public array.
Maybe that makes more sense than what I did, not sure.

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

> +1

OK, I'll take a little more time on this and maybe code it up as
you suggest.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Non-robustness in pmsignal.c
Next
From: Ranier Vilela
Date:
Subject: Re: Avoid mix char with bool type in comparisons