On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 6:03 PM Mike Palmiotto
<mike.palmiotto@crunchydata.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:56 AM Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > Well, I think it would be easier to manage as split patches, yeah.
> > I think it'd be infrastructure that needs to be carefully reviewed,
> > while the other ones are mostly boilerplate. If I were the committer
> > for it, I would push that initial patch first immediately followed by
> > conversion of some process that's heavily exercised in buildfarm, wait
> > until lack of trouble is evident, followed by a trickle of pushes to
> > adapt the other processes.
>
> Thanks for the feedback! I've rebased and tested on my F30 box with
> and without EXEC_BACKEND. Just working on splitting out the patches
> now and will post the new patchset as soon as that's done (hopefully
> sometime tomorrow).
Attached is the reworked and rebased patch set. I put the hook on top
and a separate commit for each process type. Note that avworker and
avlauncher were intentionally left together. Let me know if you think
those should be split out as well.
Tested again with and without EXEC_BACKEND. Note that you'll need to
set randomize_va_space to 0 to disable ASLR in order to avoid
occasional failure in the EXEC_BACKEND case.
Please let me know if anything else jumps out to you.
Thanks,
--
Mike Palmiotto
https://crunchydata.com
