| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Nico Williams <nico(at)cryptonector(dot)com>, Asim R P <apraveen(at)pivotal(dot)io>, Jimmy Yih <jyih(at)pivotal(dot)io>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] possible self-deadlock window after bad ProcessStartupPacket |
| Date: | 2018-07-23 14:34:45 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob2RfYeiKVNDOc69y8pui+uc1YnfS9f=p9yPpmzUOpDGQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 4:53 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> ISTM that no-one has any great ideas on what to do about the ereport() in
> quickdie(). But I think we have consensus on replacing the exit(2) calls
> with _exit(2). If we do just that, it would be better than the status quo,
> even if it doesn't completely fix the problem. This would prevent the case
> that Asim reported, for starters.
+1 for trying to improve this by using _exit rather than exit, and for
not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
But -1 for copying the language "if some idiot DBA sends a manual
SIGQUIT to a random backend". I think that phrase could be deleted
from this comment -- and all of the other places where this comment
appears already today -- without losing any useful informational
content. Or it could be rephrased to "if this process receives a
SIGQUIT". It's just not necessary to call somebody an idiot to
communicate the point.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2018-07-23 14:35:02 | Re: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending) patents? |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2018-07-23 14:32:55 | Re: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending) patents? |