Hi Andres,
On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 1:29 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> 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
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 e
On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 7:55 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> I am planning to back-patch these next week.
Done.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
eakage.patch
Description: Binary data
fix-another-WaitEventSet-resource-leakage-PG12.patch
Description: Binary data
Hi,
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.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-i
On 22/11/2023 15:00, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
I can also confirm that the patches proposed (for master and back branches)
eliminate WES leakage as expected.
Thanks for the fix!
Maybe you would find appropriate to add the comment
/* Convenience wrappers over ResourceOwnerRemember/Forget */
above
20.11.2023 00:09, Thomas Munro wrote:
On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 12:22 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
And here is a patch to implement that on master.
Rationale and code look good to me.
I can also confirm that the patches proposed (for master and back branches)
eliminate WES leakage as expect
On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 12:22 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 16/11/2023 01:08, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> >> On 09/03/2023 20:51, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> After further thought that seems like a pretty ad-hoc solution.
> >>> We probably can do no better in the back branches,
On 16/11/2023 01:08, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
On 09/03/2023 20:51, Tom Lane wrote:
After further thought that seems like a pretty ad-hoc solution.
We probably can do no better in the back branches, but shouldn't
we start treating WaitEventSets as ResourceOwner-managed resourc
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> On 09/03/2023 20:51, Tom Lane wrote:
>> After further thought that seems like a pretty ad-hoc solution.
>> We probably can do no better in the back branches, but shouldn't
>> we start treating WaitEventSets as ResourceOwner-managed resources?
>> Otherwise, transient Wa
(Alexander just reminded me of this off-list)
On 09/03/2023 20:51, Tom Lane wrote:
In [1] I wrote:
PG Bug reporting form writes:
The following script:
[ leaks a file descriptor per error ]
Yeah, at least on platforms where WaitEventSets own kernel file
descriptors. I don't think it's post
In [1] I wrote:
> PG Bug reporting form writes:
>> The following script:
>> [ leaks a file descriptor per error ]
>
> Yeah, at least on platforms where WaitEventSets own kernel file
> descriptors. I don't think it's postgres_fdw's fault though,
> but that of ExecAppendAsyncEventWait, which is i
12 matches
Mail list logo
