On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> I just noticed that the DSM patch has introduced a whole new class of >>> failures related to the bug #9464 issue: to wit, any on_detach >>> actions registered in a parent process will also be performed when a >>> child process exits, because nothing has been added to on_exit_reset >>> to prevent that. It seems likely that this is undesirable. > >> I don't think this can actually happen. There are quite a number of >> things that would go belly-up if you tried to use dynamic shared >> memory from the postmaster, which is why dsm_create() and dsm_attach() >> both Assert(IsUnderPostmaster). > > Nonetheless it seems like a good idea to make on_exit_reset drop any > such queued actions. > > The big picture here is that in the scenario being debated in the other > thread, exit() in a child process forked from a backend will execute that > backend's on_detach actions *even if the code had done on_exit_reset after > the fork*.
Hmm. So the problematic sequence of events is where a postmaster child forks, and then exits without exec-ing, perhaps because e.g. exec fails? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
