Re: Signals in a BGW

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Signals in a BGW
Date: 2017-12-07 19:58:01
Message-ID: 20171207195801.wugc5wcyarblwhp6@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2017-12-07 12:35:07 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> wrote:
> >> The default handler is bgworker_die ; see src/backend/postmaster
> >> /bgworker.c
> >> . I don't know if elog() is safe in a signal handler, but I guess in
> >> the absence of non-reentrant errcontext functions...
> >
> > That does seem bold, doesn't it?
>
> Yes, I think it's flat busted.

We've had that discussion a couple times. The concensus so far has been
that FATALing is considered kinda ok, everything else not. But it
definitely has caused issues in the ast, mostly due to malloc being
entered while already in malloc.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2017-12-07 19:58:56 Re: Postgres with pthread
Previous Message Chapman Flack 2017-12-07 19:53:21 Re: Logical replication without a Primary Key