Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Perform only oneReadControlFile() during startup.

On 2017-09-19 13:15:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund  writes:
> > On 2017-09-19 13:00:33 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> You mean, in the postmaster?
>
> > Yes. We try to avoid touch shmem there, but it's not like we're
> > succeeding fully. See e.g. the pgstat_get_crashed_backend_activity()
> > calls (which do rely on shmem being ok to some extent), pmsignal,
> > BackgroundWorkerStateChange(), ...
>
> Well, the point is to avoid touching data structures that could be
> corrupted enough to confuse the postmaster.  I don't have any problem with
> adding some more functionality to pmsignal, say.

Given that we're ok with reading pgstat shared memory entries, I think
adding a carefully coded variant of SendProcSignal() should be doable in
a safe manner.

Something roughly like

int
PostmasterSendProcSignal(pid_t pid, ProcSignalReason reason)
{   volatile ProcSignalSlot *slot;
   /*    * As this is running in postmaster, be careful not to dereference    * any pointers from shared memory that could be corrupted, and to    * not to throw errors.    */
   for (i = 0; i < NumProcSignalSlots; i++)   {       slot = &ProcSignalSlots[i];
       if (slot->pss_pid == pid)       {           /*            * The note about race conditions in SendProcSignal applies            * here, too            */
           /* Atomically set the proper flag */           slot->pss_signalFlags[reason] = true;           /* Send signal */           return kill(pid, SIGUSR1);       }   }
   errno = ESRCH;   return -1;
}

As all the memory offsets are computed based on postmaster process-local
variables, this should be safe.

I'd rather like to avoid a copy of the procsignal infrastructure if we
don't need it...

Greetings,

Andres Freund


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers