Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1ruxJK-008lHA-4k for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:30:04 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1ruxJI-002grr-Oa for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:30:00 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1ruxJH-002gri-1s for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:30:00 +0000 Received: from fhigh6-smtp.messagingengine.com ([103.168.172.157]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1ruxJ8-000Owj-P5 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:29:58 +0000 Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailfhigh.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A1181140169; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 12:29:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 11 Apr 2024 12:29:48 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=anarazel.de; h= cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1712852988; x=1712939388; bh=jsuowO4Oj5 qx9XajR+b6/Gf9LeukLys8sIo6eKCV494=; b=EeTGiBX3lE4d9JiJQXRgg8HqWM IfarMIk+uSPVIU80CZYKVPH6svPU+u987NE+pKIN2jdbJcVEg2BxO/cNAzk7ffib EYeznKIopW/ye3lhukkF2ldK7aVSRL2oyygOymyrJQKA3XamHPewJ8ti3IQQQsy+ eg2XfwF343N+/dr3Bf/YXsQuYEgvBcXrANTiaGl8fUPVSbrq9fm+jBMy58Bmh6h9 XmR0FY1DfA22ylWOJiqwTgym8QaAlASUIfi+2gbBo5/IqzgDxnREV+PMPx1kSgC1 yusdRvAi/g8K0/zegfPUOFTr+i8ZtTehmQ13s5cRxuoYoZP3rBfj58ChNlGQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm2; t=1712852988; x=1712939388; bh=jsuowO4Oj5qx9XajR+b6/Gf9Leuk Lys8sIo6eKCV494=; b=Xbmi247WUHSv0gHOOSQYUfrhwGFjWoxdyKukzKpDbrGJ aoIlm03zYIEwJpoYqcuC3uYx7Bfq5hsovH5P2/TmbI/+ZlfyJXtEowGy/4P5Go82 t6Pw1SPwY2h61XqTmCasCVm/dWRQlWefnNSowmRJSkbyY0FAC7mrS4bt3MnFzsP/ 0SPle7yV2/Sqg2KYJU89JI6d5ZGtNRzLnpDwBrFINTKTVv5z03hbN1e4WWfcQntE UR76SRe4WpcN3R197pHI46ZgHwc6OmZtRe8PZywjbr2JR3uOzRNsEoGyUWNpgYrd pxjgrsDsZkhHSTcen3cV/Gq5i/KVCok1Aog58oQkMQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvledrudehkedguddtudcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpeffhffvvefukfhfgggtuggjsehttdertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpeetnhgu rhgvshcuhfhrvghunhguuceorghnughrvghssegrnhgrrhgriigvlhdruggvqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpedvffefvefhteevffegieetfefhtddvffejvefhueetgeeludehteev udeitedtudenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhroh hmpegrnhgurhgvshesrghnrghrrgiivghlrdguvg X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: id4a34324:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 12:29:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 09:29:46 -0700 From: Andres Freund To: Etsuro Fujita Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: Another WaitEventSet resource leakage in back branches Message-ID: <20240411162946.6qnlzimjarkeo2su@awork3.anarazel.de> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Hi, On 2024-03-22 21:15:45 +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > While working on [1], I noticed $SUBJECT: WaitLatchOrSocket in back > branches is ignoring the possibility of failing partway through, too. > I added a PG_FAINALLY block to that function, like commit 555276f85. > Patch attached. Could you expand a bit on the concrete scenario you're worried about here? PG_TRY/CATCH aren't free, so adding something like this to a quite common path, in the back branches, without a concrete analysis as to why it's needed, seems a bit scary. Greetings, Andres Freund