| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ewan Higgs <ewan_higgs(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Configure with thread sanitizer fails the thread test |
| Date: | 2015-08-17 19:02:06 |
| Message-ID: | 20150817190206.GF10786@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-08-17 14:31:24 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> The postmaster process in particular runs in a rather unusual
> arrangement, where most of the interesting stuff does happen in signal
> handlers.
FWIW, I think it might be worthwhile to convert postmaster into a loop
over a process local latch, with that latch being set in signal
handlers. My feeling is that that'd simplify the code rather
significantly. I'm not 100% it's worth the code churn, but it'd
definitely be easier to understand. Thread sanitizer isn't the first
analysis tool that has problems coping with forks in signal handlers
btw, valgrind on amd64 for a long while had misaligned stacks in the
children afterwards leading to very odd crashes.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-08-17 19:04:25 | Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6 |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2015-08-17 18:58:23 | Re: Test code is worth the space |