Re: GetNamedLWLockTranche crashes on Windows in normal backend
От | Sami Imseih |
---|---|
Тема | Re: GetNamedLWLockTranche crashes on Windows in normal backend |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA5RZ0vpr0P2rbA=_K0_SCHM7bmfVX4wEO9FAyopN1eWCYORhA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: GetNamedLWLockTranche crashes on Windows in normal backend (Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: GetNamedLWLockTranche crashes on Windows in normal backend
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2025 at 08:35:13PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 04, 2025 at 04:12:09PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote: > >>> Yeah, I think modeling this after commit 4f2400c is a reasonable thing to > >>> explore. > >> > >> Here it is as described above. > > > > Thanks. This looks like the right idea to me, but let's give some time for > > others to comment. > > I've started preparing this for commit, and I realized that restricting > GetNamedLWLockTranche() to shmem_startup_hook is not sufficient. > EXEC_BACKEND builds will run this hook in every backend, so unless it's > guarded behind some sort of "if (!found)" condition (i.e., only run in the > postmaster), it'll still crash. I think we just need to add some extra > notes to the docs and check for !IsUnderPostmaster, as discussed upthread. I think v2 is fine because it is perfectly fine for a normal backend ( EXEC_BACKEND) to call this function as long as it's processing the startup hook. The goal is to prevent it from being called outside of the startup hook. > Or... what if we just moved the request array to shared memory? I guess that works also, if we want to maintain the existing behavior. I am OK with this as well, and I don't see anything wrong with v3. FWIW, I got the tests discussed in [0] commit ready and also included tests for this crash. Attached is the patch with the tests. v4-0001 and v3-0001 are identical. v4-0002 includes the tests. I think we should commit these tests as well. If you think the tests should be a separate thread, let me know. -- Sami [0] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aLcPbyWLawp5_rdt%40nathan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: