From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Resetting PGPROC atomics in ProcessInit() |
Date: | 2018-11-09 04:58:36 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1L36RJ4m3q4wL6VHjdSxOnK8BjHnQu30NvNghCJVkLd0A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 4:38 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 6:30 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 6:41 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > > I just noticed, while working on a patch adding things to PGPROC, that
> > > the group clearning patches for the proc array and clog reset atomics in
> > > InitProcess().
> > >
> > > I'm not a big fan of that, because it means that it's not safe to look
> > > at the atomics of backends that aren't currently in use. Is there any
> > > reason to not instead initialize them in InitProcGlobal() and just
> > > assert in InitProcess() that they're 0? If they're not, we'd be in deep
> > > trouble anyway, no?
> >
> > I think you are correct. I think it would be better in general for
> > InitProcess() to Assert() rather than reinitializing.
> >
>
> Okay, changed the code as per Andres's and your suggestion. Do you
> think the attached change makes sense? I think we should backpatch
> this.
>
For 10 and 9.6, we need a slightly different patch as the change of
group clog update went in 11. Attached are the patches for the same,
note that there is a slight change in the commit message for the patch
written for 10 and 9.6. I will wait for a few days (till Tuesday(at)8:00
AM IST) to see if somebody has any comments or want to review before I
push.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
0001-Fix-the-initialization-of-atomic-variables-introduce.patch | application/octet-stream | 2.2 KB |
0001-Fix-the-initialization-of-atomic-variable-introduced-10.patch | application/octet-stream | 1.7 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Langote | 2018-11-09 05:04:45 | Re: BUG #15212: Default values in partition tables don't work as expected and allow NOT NULL violation |
Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2018-11-09 04:56:36 | Re: BUG #15212: Default values in partition tables don't work as expected and allow NOT NULL violation |