Re: Non-robustness in pmsignal.c

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Non-robustness in pmsignal.c
Date: 2022-10-08 00:35:58
Message-ID: 3441787.1665189358@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:
> Why are we even tracking PM_CHILD_UNUSED / PM_CHILD_ASSIGNED in shared memory?

Because those flags are set by the child processes too, cf
MarkPostmasterChildActive and MarkPostmasterChildInactive.

> Are you thinking these should be backpatched?

I am, but I'm not inclined to push this immediately before a wrap.
If we intend to wrap 15.0 on Monday then I'll wait till after that.
OTOH, if we slip that a week, I'd be okay with pushing in the
next day or two.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2022-10-08 00:43:02 Re: Non-robustness in pmsignal.c
Previous Message Andres Freund 2022-10-08 00:28:29 Re: Non-robustness in pmsignal.c