Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2017-09-19 13:00:33 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> You mean, in the postmaster?
> Yes. We try to avoid touch shmem there, but it's not like we're
> succeeding fully. See e.g. the pgstat_get_crashed_backend_activity()
> calls (which do rely on shmem being ok to some extent), pmsignal,
> BackgroundWorkerStateChange(), ...
Well, the point is to avoid touching data structures that could be
corrupted enough to confuse the postmaster. I don't have any problem with
adding some more functionality to pmsignal, say.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
