From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PostmasterContext survives into parallel workers!? |
Date: | 2016-08-01 23:27:25 |
Message-ID: | CAEepm=0ifsFUerOSzrfGNnq2pxWNrPLsdh=-XG-1cK2tn+sL2A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>> On 2016-08-01 18:09:03 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> (Also vaguely on the list of things to clean up: can't we make it so
>>> that bgworkers aren't launched from inside a signal handler? Blech.)
>
>> Isn't pretty much everything on-demand below postmaster started from a
>> signal handler?
>
> I think it depends. As an example, maybe_start_bgworker is called
> from PostmasterMain, *and* from ServerLoop, *and* from reaper,
> *and* from sigusr1_handler. That's likely excessive, but it's what
> we've got at the moment.
I found this apparently unresolved bug report about glibc fork()
inside a signal handler deadlocking:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4737
I wonder if that could bite postmaster. It's interesting because
comments 16 and 19 and 22 suggest that it may not be fixed.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-08-01 23:36:45 | Re: New version numbering practices |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-08-01 23:21:23 | Re: PostmasterContext survives into parallel workers!? |