From: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Weaker shmem interlock w/o postmaster.pid
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:02:24 -0500
Message-ID: <20140213140224.GC2709347@tornado.leadboat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140212230640.GB4831@momjian.us>
References: <20130911033341.GD225735@tornado.leadboat.com>
<CA+TgmoZJn7oF8uOQva4sBY=G04UHZ23+p=tjE9NueZsBvHMTFQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20140212230640.GB4831@momjian.us>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 06:06:40PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 02:10:45PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> > > I'm thinking to preserve postmaster.pid at immediate shutdown in all released
> > > versions, but I'm less sure about back-patching a change to make
> > > PGSharedMemoryCreate() pickier. On the one hand, allowing startup to proceed
> > > with backends still active in the same data directory is a corruption hazard.
> > > On the other hand, it could break weird shutdown/restart patterns that permit
> > > trivial lifespan overlap between backends of different postmasters. Opinions?
> >
> > I'm more sanguine about the second change than the first. Leaving
> > postmaster.pid around seems like a clear user-visible behavior change
> > that could break user scripts or have other consequences that we don't
> > foresee; thus, I would vote against back-patching it. Indeed, I'm not
> > sure it's a good idea to do that even in master. On the other hand,
> > tightening the checks in PGSharedMemoryCreate() seems very much worth
> > doing, and I think it might also be safe enough to back-patch.
>
> Were these changes every applied? I don't see them.
No, I haven't gotten around to writing them.
--
Noah Misch
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
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-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: noah@leadboat.com, bruce@momjian.us, robertmhaas@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Weaker shmem interlock w/o postmaster.pid
In-Reply-To: <20140213140224.GC2709347@tornado.leadboat.com>
* 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