Re: Non-robustness in pmsignal.c
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Non-robustness in pmsignal.c |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20221008004302.mnm4qwu4wqw6ssk2@awork3.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Non-robustness in pmsignal.c (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Non-robustness in pmsignal.c
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On 2022-10-07 20:35:58 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > > Why are we even tracking PM_CHILD_UNUSED / PM_CHILD_ASSIGNED in shared memory? > > Because those flags are set by the child processes too, cf > MarkPostmasterChildActive and MarkPostmasterChildInactive. Only PM_CHILD_ACTIVE and PM_CHILD_WALSENDER though. We could afford another MaxLivePostmasterChildren() sized array... > > Are you thinking these should be backpatched? > > I am, but I'm not inclined to push this immediately before a wrap. +1 > If we intend to wrap 15.0 on Monday then I'll wait till after that. > OTOH, if we slip that a week, I'd be okay with pushing in the > next day or two. Makes sense. - Andres
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: