pg.ddx.io pgsql-committers@postgresql.org mailing list archivehelp / color / mirror / Atom feed
pgsql: Adjust obsolete comment explaining set_stack_base(). 2+ messages / 1 participants [nested] [flat]
* pgsql: Adjust obsolete comment explaining set_stack_base(). @ 2023-12-01 02:20 Thomas Munro <tmunro@postgresql.org> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread From: Thomas Munro @ 2023-12-01 02:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org Adjust obsolete comment explaining set_stack_base(). Commit 7389aad6 removed the notion of backends started from inside a signal handler. A stray comment still referred to them, while explaining the need for a call to set_stack_base(). That leads to the question of whether we still need the call in !EXEC_BACKEND builds. There doesn't seem to be much point in suppressing it now, as it doesn't hurt and probably helps to measure the stack base from the exact same place in EXEC_BACKEND and !EXEC_BACKEND builds. Back-patch to 16. Reported-by: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> Reported-by: Tristan Partin <tristan@neon.tech> Reported-by: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA%2BhUKG%2BEJHcevNGNOxVWxTNFbuB%3Dvjf4U68%2B85rAC_Sxvy2zEQ%40mail.gmail.com Branch ------ master Details ------- https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/3b51265ee30784880fb2652051a4066ab9f9f90e Modified Files -------------- src/backend/utils/init/miscinit.c | 5 ++--- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2+ messages in thread
* pgsql: Adjust obsolete comment explaining set_stack_base(). @ 2023-12-01 02:20 Thomas Munro <tmunro@postgresql.org> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread From: Thomas Munro @ 2023-12-01 02:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org Adjust obsolete comment explaining set_stack_base(). Commit 7389aad6 removed the notion of backends started from inside a signal handler. A stray comment still referred to them, while explaining the need for a call to set_stack_base(). That leads to the question of whether we still need the call in !EXEC_BACKEND builds. There doesn't seem to be much point in suppressing it now, as it doesn't hurt and probably helps to measure the stack base from the exact same place in EXEC_BACKEND and !EXEC_BACKEND builds. Back-patch to 16. Reported-by: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> Reported-by: Tristan Partin <tristan@neon.tech> Reported-by: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA%2BhUKG%2BEJHcevNGNOxVWxTNFbuB%3Dvjf4U68%2B85rAC_Sxvy2zEQ%40mail.gmail.com Branch ------ REL_16_STABLE Details ------- https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/cf84755575d1052770e92d291d1427720c8b53ca Modified Files -------------- src/backend/utils/init/miscinit.c | 5 ++--- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-12-01 02:20 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2023-12-01 02:20 pgsql: Adjust obsolete comment explaining set_stack_base(). Thomas Munro <tmunro@postgresql.org> 2023-12-01 02:20 pgsql: Adjust obsolete comment explaining set_stack_base(). Thomas Munro <tmunro@postgresql.org>
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