Re: PostmasterContext survives into parallel workers!?

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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!?