Re: shmem_seq may be a bad idea

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Peter Eisentraut
Тема Re: shmem_seq may be a bad idea
Дата
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.21.0005011237120.389-100000@localhost.localdomain
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответы Re: shmem_seq may be a bad idea  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane writes:

> When a postmaster initially starts up, it uses a key value of
> PortNumber * 1000. However, if it is forced to do a system-wide
> restart because of a backend crash, it generates a new key value
> different from the old one, namely PortNumber * 1000 + shmem_seq *
> 100, so that the old shared-memory segments are discarded and a new
> set is created.

Why not use IPC_EXCL to ensure you're getting a freshly baked shmem
segment rather than a recycled one?

> The intent of this logic is evidently to ensure that the old, failed
> backends can't somehow corrupt the new ones.

But what if someone runs another postmaster at port 5433, will it
eventually interfere? Or some totally different program? Trying to
generate distinct number to use for keys is only one part of the equation,
but you still have to check whether the number was distinct enough.


-- 
Peter Eisentraut                  Sernanders väg 10:115
peter_e@gmx.net                   75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/            Sweden



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: RE: [PATCHES] relation filename patch
Следующее
От: Peter Eisentraut
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: When malloc returns zero ...