Re: Something fishy happening on frogmouth

On 2013-11-04 10:27:47 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 01.11.2013 18:22, Noah Misch wrote:
> >On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 12:27:31AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >>On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote:
> >>>On 31.10.2013 16:43, Robert Haas wrote:
> >>>>There should be no cases where the main shared memory
> >>>>segment gets cleaned up and the dynamic shared memory segments do not.
> >>>
> >>>1. initdb -D data1
> >>>2. initdb -D data2
> >>>3. postgres -D data1
> >>>4. killall -9 postgres
> >>>5. postgres -D data2
> >>>
> >>>The system V shmem segment orphaned at step 4 will be cleaned up at step 5.
> >>>The DSM segment will not.
> >
> >Note that dynamic_shared_memory_type='mmap' will give the desired behavior.

Well, with the significant price of causing file-io.

> Hmm, here's another idea:
> 
> Postmaster creates the POSIX shared memory object at startup, by calling
> shm_open(), and immediately calls shm_unlink on it. That way, once all the
> processes have exited, the object will be removed automatically. Child
> processes inherit the file descriptor at fork(), and don't need to call
> shm_open, just mmap().

Uh. Won't that completely and utterly remove the point of dsm which is
that you can create segments *after* startup? We surely don't want to
start overallocating enough shmem so we don't ever dynamically need to
allocate segments.
Also, I don't think it's portable across platforms to access segments
that already have been unlinked.

I think this is looking for a solution without an actually relevant
problem disregarding the actual problem space.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

-- Andres Freund                       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services