Re: on_exit_reset fails to clear DSM-related exit actions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: on_exit_reset fails to clear DSM-related exit actions
Date: 2014-03-07 18:54:42
Message-ID: 20462.1394218482@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I just noticed that the DSM patch has introduced a whole new class of
>> failures related to the bug #9464 issue: to wit, any on_detach
>> actions registered in a parent process will also be performed when a
>> child process exits, because nothing has been added to on_exit_reset
>> to prevent that. It seems likely that this is undesirable.

> I don't think this can actually happen. There are quite a number of
> things that would go belly-up if you tried to use dynamic shared
> memory from the postmaster, which is why dsm_create() and dsm_attach()
> both Assert(IsUnderPostmaster).

Nonetheless it seems like a good idea to make on_exit_reset drop any
such queued actions.

The big picture here is that in the scenario being debated in the other
thread, exit() in a child process forked from a backend will execute that
backend's on_detach actions *even if the code had done on_exit_reset after
the fork*. So whether or not you buy Andres' argument that it's not
necessary for atexit_callback to defend against this scenario, there's
actually no other defense possible given the way things work in HEAD.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2014-03-07 19:03:12 Re: on_exit_reset fails to clear DSM-related exit actions
Previous Message Andres Freund 2014-03-07 18:38:35 Re: Unportable coding in reorderbuffer.h