Re: Configure with thread sanitizer fails the thread test

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2015-08-17 14:31:24 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> The postmaster process in particular runs in a rather unusual
>> arrangement, where most of the interesting stuff does happen in signal
>> handlers.
>
> FWIW, I think it might be worthwhile to convert postmaster into a loop
> over a process local latch, with that latch being set in signal
> handlers. My feeling is that that'd simplify the code rather
> significantly. I'm not 100% it's worth the code churn, but it'd
> definitely be easier to understand. Thread sanitizer isn't the first
> analysis tool that has problems coping with forks in signal handlers
> btw, valgrind on amd64 for a long while had misaligned stacks in the
> children afterwards leading to very odd crashes.

Yeah, I'm a little worried about whether we'd destabilize things by
changing them in that way, but if we could avoid that pitfall I
suspect we'd end up better off.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company