| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: making bgworkers without shmem access actually not have shmem access |
| Date: | 2014-05-07 18:57:20 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobCevERwcso6WEFE=+vg3a0b34+7YDEWgjbVdL0SWLC2g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I've complained about this problem a few times before: there's nothing
>> to prevent a background worker which doesn't request shared memory
>> access from calling InitProcess() and then accessing shared memory
>> anyway. The attached patch is a first crack at fixing it.
>
>> Comments?
>
> Looks reasonable to me.
Thanks for the fast review. Committed, after fixing one further bug I spotted.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-05-07 18:58:02 | Re: proposal: Set effective_cache_size to greater of .conf value, shared_buffers |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-05-07 18:52:30 | Re: proposal: Set effective_cache_size to greater of .conf value, shared_buffers |