Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] Crash reading pg_stat_activity
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] Crash reading pg_stat_activity |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoaR++pDAg9KGvtT4-3OwNkY+A3ZW5M-arZ+=J803h=5XQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] Crash reading pg_stat_activity (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] Crash reading pg_stat_activity
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 9:28 PM, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Thomas Munro > <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> But I'm starting to think that the best way might be to do BOTH of the >> things I said in my previous message: make dsa.c register on >> create/attach and also unregister before detaching iff the name was >> supplied at creation time for the benefit of extension writers, but >> make it not do anything at all about tranche name >> registration/unregistration if NULL was passed in at create time. >> Then register this particular tranche (LWTRANCHE_PARALLEL_QUERY_DSA) >> in every process in RegisterLWLockTranches. That way, you'd get a >> useful name in pg_stat_activity for other backends that are running >> parallel queries if they are ever waiting for these locks (unlikely >> but interesting to know abotu if it happens). > > Maybe something like the attached. Now that array_base and array_stride are gone, I don't see any reason why the DSA machinery needs to be aware of tranche names at all. So I propose to rip all that out, as in the attached. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: