pg.ddx.io  pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org mailing list archive  
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Yuli Khodorkovskiy <yuli.khodorkovskiy@crunchydata.com>
Cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Subject: Re: BUG #15804: Assertion failure when using logging_collector with EXEC_BACKEND
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 15:06:28 +0900
Message-ID: <20190516060628.GE1415@paquier.xyz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <31437.1557982294@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <27CD45B5-88F7-4A09-8B31-EFE41FC37FE1@crunchydata.com>
	<26332.1557863524@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<20190515073125.GA1517@paquier.xyz>
	<4643.1557931189@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<20190516013808.GA1415@paquier.xyz>
	<20190516021903.GB1415@paquier.xyz>
	<28927.1557977558@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<20190516035617.GC1415@paquier.xyz>
	<20190516043618.GD1415@paquier.xyz>
	<31437.1557982294@sss.pgh.pa.us>

On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 12:51:34AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hm, should we separate the cleanup of the root pgsql_tmp/ from the rest of
> what RemovePgTempFiles does?  I'm still feeling like we should be trying
> to launch the syslogger as soon as possible.

Indeed, this should be safe, the syslogger is not going to touch any
of the other temp files anyway.  If we begin to do that, we had better
update the comments at the top of RemovePgTempFiles()'s call, and
expose RemovePgTempFilesInDir().

Anyway, I have to admit that I am not really enthusiastic about
relaxing the assertions for the win32 and the sysv interfaces, and do
that inconsistently on top of it.

As far as my first investigations have gone, assertions in
pgwin32_ReserveSharedMemoryRegion() and
PGSharedMemoryReAttach():sysv_shmem.c would need relaxing, but we rely
on that since a7e5878, which is quite some time ago.  And, actually,
the failure for pgwin32_ReserveSharedMemoryRegion() should never
happen at all, because we need to call reset_shared() before starting
the syslogger as well, no?  If we want to be able to log the creation
socket messages with the logging collector, it seems to me that we
would need first to remove the dependency with the port number in
PGSharedMemoryCreate() to find a free IPC key.  Thoughts?
--
Michael

Attachments:

  [application/pgp-signature] signature.asc (832B, ../20190516060628.GE1415@paquier.xyz/2-signature.asc)
  download

view thread (40+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <20190516060628.GE1415@paquier.xyz>
Permalink:  ../20190516060628.GE1415@paquier.xyz/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/20190516060628.GE1415@paquier.xyz

 · 

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
  Cc: michael@paquier.xyz, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, yuli.khodorkovskiy@crunchydata.com, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com
  Subject: Re: BUG #15804: Assertion failure when using logging_collector with EXEC_BACKEND
  In-Reply-To: <20190516060628.GE1415@paquier.xyz>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox