Re: Non-robustness in pmsignal.c
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Non-robustness in pmsignal.c |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3443537.1665190158@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Non-robustness in pmsignal.c (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: Non-robustness in pmsignal.c
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > 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... Oh, I see what you mean --- one private and one public array. Maybe that makes more sense than what I did, not sure. >> I am, but I'm not inclined to push this immediately before a wrap. > +1 OK, I'll take a little more time on this and maybe code it up as you suggest. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: