| From: | Ants Aasma <ants(dot)aasma(at)eesti(dot)ee> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Checkpoint start logging is done inside critical section |
| Date: | 2018-10-18 07:04:44 |
| Message-ID: | CA+CSw_vW9nJbCOxM3+ZO1Y9f6Eofx=wSwMfpEO-NMb7iV+OsSQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 9:02 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 10:27 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > (that's why we mark the ctx as being ok with that).
> >
>
> Yeah, as the palloc for log message would be called in an ErrorContext
> where it is safe to do the allocation, so ideally this shouldn't be a
> problem. So, it seems to me that this is not a problem, Ants, do you
> see any problem in any particular scenario or was this based on
> theoretical analysis?
This was purely theoretical, as also evidenced by lack of complaints
even though the code has been like that for a very long time. I was
actually mostly worried about extension code run by logging hook
causing the panic.
Regards,
Ants Aasma
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2018-10-18 08:55:51 | Re: DSM robustness failure (was Re: Peripatus/failures) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-10-18 06:04:11 | Re: PG vs macOS Mojave |