Re: [HACKERS] possible self-deadlock window after bad ProcessStartupPacket
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] possible self-deadlock window after bad ProcessStartupPacket |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 23058.1532029775@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] possible self-deadlock window after badProcessStartupPacket (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] possible self-deadlock window after badProcessStartupPacket
Re: [HACKERS] possible self-deadlock window after badProcessStartupPacket |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2018-07-19 11:57:25 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> The regular backend's quickdie() function is more tricky. It should also
>> call _exit(2) rather than exit(2). But it also tries to ereport a WARNING,
>> and that is quite useful.
There's already an on_exit_reset in there; why do we need more than that?
> Is that actually true? Clients like libpq create the same error message
> (which has its own issues, because it'll sometimes mis-interpret
> things). The message doesn't actually have useful content, no?
Yes, it does: it lets users tell the difference between exit due to a
SIGQUIT and a crash of their own backend.
Admittedly, if we crash trying to send the message, then we're not
better off. But since that happens only very rarely, I do not think
it's a reasonable tradeoff to never send it at all.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: