Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 10:54:45 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Yuli Khodorkovskiy <yuli.khodorkovskiy@crunchydata.com>,
	pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org,
	Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Subject: Re: BUG #15804: Assertion failure when using logging_collector with
 EXEC_BACKEND
Message-ID: <20190520015445.GF1923@paquier.xyz>
References: <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>
 <20190516060628.GE1415@paquier.xyz>
 <20190517042536.GM20887@paquier.xyz>
 <31224.1558199235@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="IvGM3kKqwtniy32b"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <31224.1558199235@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk


--IvGM3kKqwtniy32b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 01:07:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I've not worked that out in any detail; getting the switches included
> properly might be too much of a pain for this to be an improvement.
> But for sure I don't want there to be multiple copies of that list of
> which subprocess types use shared memory.

Getting rid of the process list dependency would be nice.

> A variant idea is to include shared_memory_exists in what's passed down
> by the BackendParameters mechanism, and then subprocesses can adjust
> their behavior for themselves.

I actually got to think about having extra switches to control the
re-attachment of sub-processes when thinking about a solution, and I
agree that it would be much cleaner.  The idea about using backend
parameters is interesting (I haven't considered it), though I feel
that this could introduce race conditions as the process startup
scheduling can cause tricky issues on Windows, so I think that this
would make the system less robust.  Using a state specific to the
postmaster for the decision-making ensures a single entry point.

> In any case, the thrust of all of this is that we shouldn't touch any
> of the assertions in the shmem support files; rather, the way to fix
> it is to improve the logic in postmaster.c so that we don't call those
> functions at all in child processes that are launched before shmem
> exists.

I certainly agree with that.  Those assertions are here to stay.
--
Michael

--IvGM3kKqwtniy32b
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=z/sl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--IvGM3kKqwtniy32b--