| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Atomics for heap_parallelscan_nextpage() |
| Date: | 2017-08-16 22:31:04 |
| Message-ID: | 31086.1502922664@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On August 16, 2017 3:09:27 PM PDT, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I wonder whether it's sensible to have --enable-cassert have the effect
>> of filling memory allocated by ShmemAlloc or the DSA code with junk (as
>> palloc does) instead of leaving it at zeroes. It's not modeling the
>> same kind of effect, since we have no shmem-freeing primitives, but
>> it might be useful for this sort of thing.
> We kind of do - crash restarts... So yes, that's probably a good idea.
Crash restart releases the shmem segment and acquires a new one,
doesn't it? Or am I misremembering? I thought that it did do so,
if only to make darn sure that no old processes remain connected
to shmem.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-08-16 22:41:07 | Re: Hash Functions |
| Previous Message | Kenneth Marshall | 2017-08-16 22:27:38 | Re: Hash Functions |