From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Allocations in critical section (was Re: WAL format and API changes (9.5)) |
Date: | 2014-04-04 13:56:38 |
Message-ID: | 5381.1396619798@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> writes:
> Ok, I fixed the issues that the assertion fixed. I also committed a
> patch to add the assertion itself; let's see if the buildfarm finds more
> cases that violate the rule.
> It ignores the checkpointer, because it's known to violate the rule,
... uh, isn't that a bug to be fixed?
> and
> allocations in ErrorContext, which is used during error recovery, e.g if
> you indeed PANIC while in a critical section for some other reason.
Yeah, I realized we'd have to do something about elog's own allocations.
Not sure if a blanket exemption for ErrorContext is the best way. I'd
been thinking of having a way to turn off the complaint once processing
of an elog(PANIC) has started.
> I didn't backpatch this.
Agreed.
BTW, I'm pretty sure you added some redundant assertions in mcxt.c.
eg, palloc does not need its own copy.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-04-04 14:01:13 | Re: GiST support for inet datatypes |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-04-04 13:50:14 | Re: Securing "make check" (CVE-2014-0067) |