| 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 20:47:06 |
| Message-ID: | 20180719204706.wtrkhcnuroblxrdg@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-07-19 15:44:23 -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 03:42:46PM -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 01:38:52PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > Uhm, this'd already require a fair bit of threadsafety. Like at least
> > > all of the memory allocator / context code. Nor is having threads
> > > around unproblematic for subprocesses that are forked off. Nor does
> > > this account for the portability work.
> >
> > Yes, but that's in libc. None of that is in the PG code itself.
>
> Hmm, it would have perf impact, yes. Could the postmaster keep a pipe
> to all the backend processes and do reporting for them?
No, postmaster doesn't have sockets open to the client.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nico Williams | 2018-07-19 20:48:13 | Re: [HACKERS] possible self-deadlock window after bad ProcessStartupPacket |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-07-19 20:46:12 | Re: [HACKERS] possible self-deadlock window after bad ProcessStartupPacket |