| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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 |