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: