From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Yulin PEI <ypeiae(at)connect(dot)ust(dot)hk>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 回复: [PATCH] BUG FIX: Core dump could happen when VACUUM FULL in standalone mode |
Date: | 2020-11-30 23:08:13 |
Message-ID: | CAD21AoANMtjMscOx+itQOPMA_k5Mk=NKXztXOV7GvPBde4L+Wg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 3:54 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Yulin PEI <ypeiae(at)connect(dot)ust(dot)hk> writes:
> > Yes, I agree because (IsNormalProcessingMode() ) means that current process is not in bootstrap mode and postmaster process will not build index.
> > So my new modified patch is attached.
>
> This is a good catch, but the proposed fix still seems pretty random
> and unlike how it's done elsewhere. It seems to me that since
> index_build() is relying on plan_create_index_workers() to assess
> parallel safety, that's where to check IsUnderPostmaster. Moreover,
> the existing code in compute_parallel_vacuum_workers (which gets
> this right) associates the IsUnderPostmaster check with the initial
> check on max_parallel_maintenance_workers. So I think that the
> right fix is to adopt the compute_parallel_vacuum_workers coding
> in plan_create_index_workers, and thereby create a model for future
> uses of max_parallel_maintenance_workers to follow.
+1
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
EnterpriseDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zhihong Yu | 2020-11-30 23:24:42 | Re: runtime error copying oids field |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-11-30 23:04:34 | Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes |