Re: Unexpected behavior after OOM errors - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Unexpected behavior after OOM errors
Date
Msg-id ajUkLyWHxCeFVop_@paquier.xyz
Whole thread
In response to Re: Unexpected behavior after OOM errors  (Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Unexpected behavior after OOM errors
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 09:18:03AM +0200, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2026 at 01:55, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>> We don't ERROR when failing to register a syscache/relcache callback,
>> we FATAL if we reach one of the thresholds.
>
> Ah, thanks for correcting me. I'm not sure why I had ERROR in mind,
> but you're obviously correct. Your patch v2 LGTM.

Cool, thanks.

>> Reaching these thresholds
>> points to me to a programming error anyway, so these should not matter
>> in the field.
>
> I don't think that's (necessarily) correct. These callbacks are
> accessible to extensions, and if you load sufficiently many of those
> you could still run out of slots even if each extension stayed well
> within a reasonable threshold.

Sure, but then the only way to get out of the problem is to patch the
backend so there are more slots available.  At the end, when it comes
to core (and there should be some margin anyway), I am not really
worried.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jeyaprakash Rajamani
Date:
Subject: Re: Performance Degradation (Table becomes bloat) During Repeated Bulk UPDATE Operations
Next
From: Tatsuo Ishii
Date:
Subject: Re: Row pattern recognition