| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nico Williams <nico(at)cryptonector(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jimmy Yih <jyih(at)pivotal(dot)io>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] possible self-deadlock window after bad ProcessStartupPacket |
| Date: | 2018-07-19 20:10:14 |
| Message-ID: | 20180719201014.rfqhoxg5exzffoba@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-07-19 15:04:15 -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> Besides making ereport() async-signal-safe, which is tricky, you could
> write(2) the arguments to a pipe that another thread in the same process
> is reading from and which will then call ereport() and exit(3). This
> would be less work if you're willing to use a thread for that (the
> thread would only block in read(2) on that pipe, and would only provide
> this one service).
It'd also increase memory usage noticably (we'd have twice the process
count in the kernel, would have a lot of additional stacks etc), would
tie us to supporting threading in the backend, ... This is a DOA
approach imo.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-07-19 20:13:39 | Re: [HACKERS] possible self-deadlock window after bad ProcessStartupPacket |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-07-19 20:07:34 | Re: [HACKERS] possible self-deadlock window after bad ProcessStartupPacket |