From: | Andreas Seltenreich <seltenreich(at)gmx(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, rhaas(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [sqlsmith] Crash reading pg_stat_activity |
Date: | 2016-12-27 23:28:09 |
Message-ID: | 87inq5uf3q.fsf@ansel.ydns.eu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andreas Seltenreich writes:
> Thomas Munro writes:
>
>> It is safe, as long as the segment remains mapped. Each backend that
>> attaches calls LWLockRegisterTranche giving it the address of the name
>> in its virtual address space.
>
> Hmok, I was under the impression only backends participating in the IPC
> call the attach function, not necessarily the ones that could possible
> want to resolve the wait_event_info they found in the procArray via
> pgstat_get_wait_event().
Erm, ignore that question: They'll find a NULL in their
LWLockTrancheArray and run into the "extension" case you mentioned.
> But I really feel like I need to study the code a bit more before
> commenting further…
Following this advise now :-)
regards,
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2016-12-27 23:31:54 | Re: merging some features from plpgsql2 project |
Previous Message | Andreas Seltenreich | 2016-12-27 23:15:18 | Re: [sqlsmith] Crash reading pg_stat_activity |