On 2017-09-19 13:15:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <[email protected]> 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.
Given that we're ok with reading pgstat shared memory entries, I think
adding a carefully coded variant of SendProcSignal() should be doable in
a safe manner.
Something roughly like
int
PostmasterSendProcSignal(pid_t pid, ProcSignalReason reason)
{
volatile ProcSignalSlot *slot;
/*
* As this is running in postmaster, be careful not to dereference
* any pointers from shared memory that could be corrupted, and to
* not to throw errors.
*/
for (i = 0; i < NumProcSignalSlots; i++)
{
slot = &ProcSignalSlots[i];
if (slot->pss_pid == pid)
{
/*
* The note about race conditions in SendProcSignal applies
* here, too
*/
/* Atomically set the proper flag */
slot->pss_signalFlags[reason] = true;
/* Send signal */
return kill(pid, SIGUSR1);
}
}
errno = ESRCH;
return -1;
}
As all the memory offsets are computed based on postmaster process-local
variables, this should be safe.
I'd rather like to avoid a copy of the procsignal infrastructure if we
don't need it...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
