pg.ddx.io pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedIs Backgroundworker.bgw_restart_time is defined in seconds?
4+ messages / 3 participants
[nested] [flat]
* Is Backgroundworker.bgw_restart_time is defined in seconds?
@ 2021-08-26 07:38 constzl <const_sunny@126.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: constzl @ 2021-08-26 07:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Hi,
typedef struct BackgroundWorker
{
char bgw_name[BGW_MAXLEN];
char bgw_type[BGW_MAXLEN];
int bgw_flags;
BgWorkerStartTime bgw_start_time;
int bgw_restart_time; /* in seconds, or BGW_NEVER_RESTART */
char bgw_library_name[BGW_MAXLEN];
char bgw_function_name[BGW_MAXLEN];
Datum bgw_main_arg;
char bgw_extra[BGW_EXTRALEN];
pid_t bgw_notify_pid; /* SIGUSR1 this backend on start/stop */
} BackgroundWorker;
static bool
SanityCheckBackgroundWorker(BackgroundWorker *worker, int elevel)
{
... ...
if ((worker->bgw_restart_time < 0 &&
worker->bgw_restart_time != BGW_NEVER_RESTART) ||
(worker->bgw_restart_time > USECS_PER_DAY / 1000))
> The Backgroundworker.bgw_restart_time is defined in seconds,
> so should it be "USECS_PER_DAY / 1000,000" here instead of "USECS_PER_DAY / 1000"?
> Or am I getting it wrong?
{
ereport(elevel,
(errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE),
errmsg("background worker \"%s\": invalid restart interval",
worker->bgw_name)));
return false;
}
... ...
}
Regards!
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Is Backgroundworker.bgw_restart_time is defined in seconds?
@ 2021-08-26 08:09 Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
parent: constzl <const_sunny@126.com>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Gustafsson @ 2021-08-26 08:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: constzl <const_sunny@126.com>; +Cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
> On 26 Aug 2021, at 09:38, constzl <const_sunny@126.com> wrote:
> if ((worker->bgw_restart_time < 0 &&
> worker->bgw_restart_time != BGW_NEVER_RESTART) ||
> (worker->bgw_restart_time > USECS_PER_DAY / 1000))
>
> > The Backgroundworker.bgw_restart_time is defined in seconds,
> > so should it be "USECS_PER_DAY / 1000,000" here instead of "USECS_PER_DAY / 1000"?
> > Or am I getting it wrong?
bgw_restart_time is defined as "It can be any positive value” in the docs, see:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/bgworker.html
My reading of the above code is that is tries to catch nonsensical values, not
to cap it to enforce restarts within a 24h period.
--
Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 4+ messages in thread
* Re:Re: Is Backgroundworker.bgw_restart_time is defined in seconds?
@ 2021-08-26 08:36 constzl <const_sunny@126.com>
parent: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: constzl @ 2021-08-26 08:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>; +Cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Yes, I got it wrong. You're right. Thank you for your explanation!<br/><br/>Best Regards,
At 2021-08-26 16:09:36, "Daniel Gustafsson" <daniel@yesql.se> wrote:
>> On 26 Aug 2021, at 09:38, constzl <const_sunny@126.com> wrote:
>
>> if ((worker->bgw_restart_time < 0 &&
>> worker->bgw_restart_time != BGW_NEVER_RESTART) ||
>> (worker->bgw_restart_time > USECS_PER_DAY / 1000))
>>
>> > The Backgroundworker.bgw_restart_time is defined in seconds,
>> > so should it be "USECS_PER_DAY / 1000,000" here instead of "USECS_PER_DAY / 1000"?
>> > Or am I getting it wrong?
>
>bgw_restart_time is defined as "It can be any positive value” in the docs, see:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/bgworker.html
>
>My reading of the above code is that is tries to catch nonsensical values, not
>to cap it to enforce restarts within a 24h period.
>
>--
>Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Is Backgroundworker.bgw_restart_time is defined in seconds?
@ 2021-08-26 14:07 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
parent: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2021-08-26 14:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>; +Cc: constzl <const_sunny@126.com>; pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes:
>> On 26 Aug 2021, at 09:38, constzl <const_sunny@126.com> wrote:
>> if ((worker->bgw_restart_time < 0 &&
>> worker->bgw_restart_time != BGW_NEVER_RESTART) ||
>> (worker->bgw_restart_time > USECS_PER_DAY / 1000))
> My reading of the above code is that is tries to catch nonsensical values, not
> to cap it to enforce restarts within a 24h period.
This may be intended to guard against integer overflows later (he guesses
without having read the code).
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-08-26 14:07 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-08-26 07:38 Is Backgroundworker.bgw_restart_time is defined in seconds? constzl <const_sunny@126.com>
2021-08-26 08:09 ` Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
2021-08-26 08:36 ` constzl <const_sunny@126.com>
2021-08-26 14:07 ` Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
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