MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAJTYsWVoD3V9yhhqSae1_wqcnTdpFY-hDT7dPm5005ZFsL_bpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <0f462532-9790-4334-b503-4ee522225820@iki.fi>
 <CAJTYsWVw3h1hTDyUdaDb8MmmXF0qQKzV3YkQUwC1DhvcApFvTw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJTYsWX=EkwTvA15=T8dE1c4iVoapTT5=nkrByd2h-18NU8hZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <aeK6Fj9TiQWCcFgN@paquier.xyz>
 <CAJTYsWUEm1h_k+4Wwnri+n+V8MGPSAeyU27ehH+YwiFjJwYRvA@mail.gmail.com>
 <aebMIJakOD_XEj69@paquier.xyz>
In-Reply-To: <aebMIJakOD_XEj69@paquier.xyz>
From: Ayush Tiwari <ayushtiwari.slg01@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2026 10:33:48 +0530
Message-ID: 
 <CAJTYsWVyHuRn-uFgqozGqxSTkriPh-gByZGHzabsSjedcCfi-g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] postmaster: fix stale PM_STARTUP comment
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org,
	"noah@leadboat.com" <noah@leadboat.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e9dcb6064ff15706"
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJTYsWVyHuRn-uFgqozGqxSTkriPh-gByZGHzabsSjedcCfi-g%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

--000000000000e9dcb6064ff15706
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 at 06:30, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 12:11:45PM +0530, Ayush Tiwari wrote:
>
> No need to.  I have poked at this problem a bit more, stracing my way
> as you did, and after more testing across v15~HEAD, I have applied it.
> For v15, a difference becomes necessary at HandleChildCrash(), or we
> would begin to fail the shutdown sequence should the startup process
> have the idea to PANIC.  This maps with the changes in v18 and HEAD
> where this has been replaced by a switch/case.
>
> Another thing that I have spent a long time looking at is
> process_pm_child_exit() and the interference that this could generate
> for the startup process case, but here as well I did not spot any
> issue, so I think that we are in the clear.
>
> There was also a comment at the top of postmaster.c that incorrectly
> claimed that the checkpointer and the background writer were only
> started after switch to PM_RECOVERY, which was wrong.  I have tweaked
> that while on it.
>
> That was a good catch overall.
>
>
Thanks a lot Michael for looking into it and pushing it!

Regards,
Ayush

--000000000000e9dcb6064ff15706
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote g=
mail_quote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Tue, 21 Apr =
2026 at 06:30, Michael Paquier &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:michael@paquier.xyz">m=
ichael@paquier.xyz</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote=
" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);=
padding-left:1ex">On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 12:11:45PM +0530, Ayush Tiwari wr=
ote:<br><br>
No need to.=C2=A0 I have poked at this problem a bit more, stracing my way<=
br>
as you did, and after more testing across v15~HEAD, I have applied it.<br>
For v15, a difference becomes necessary at HandleChildCrash(), or we<br>
would begin to fail the shutdown sequence should the startup process<br>
have the idea to PANIC.=C2=A0 This maps with the changes in v18 and HEAD<br=
>
where this has been replaced by a switch/case.<br>
<br>
Another thing that I have spent a long time looking at is<br>
process_pm_child_exit() and the interference that this could generate<br>
for the startup process case, but here as well I did not spot any<br>
issue, so I think that we are in the clear.<br>
<br>
There was also a comment at the top of postmaster.c that incorrectly<br>
claimed that the checkpointer and the background writer were only<br>
started after switch to PM_RECOVERY, which was wrong.=C2=A0 I have tweaked<=
br>
that while on it.<br>
<br>
That was a good catch overall.<br><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Than=
ks a lot Michael for looking into it and pushing it!<br><br>Regards,<br>Ayu=
sh=C2=A0</div></div></div>

--000000000000e9dcb6064ff15706--