On 18/02/2026 01:11, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2026-02-17 16:24:58 -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 03:30:57PM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 11:18:00PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 14/02/2026 23:56, Andres Freund wrote:
We really need some instrumentation that fails if we do allocations in signal
handlers etc.
Yeah, that would be nice..
In theory we could pretty easily add assertions for that, given the
wrapper_handler business added a couple of years ago. I'll put together a
patch...
As promised... Fortunately, check-world didn't uncover any existing
issues. I was able to manually verify the assertion by switching a
background worker to use bgworker_die() and sending it SIGTERM. Probably
could use some additional commentary, which I'll add if the idea seems
reasonable to you.
Seems reasonable to me. I guess we could put the various asserts into a
helper function, but it's ok as-is I think.
+1
I think the spinlock functions should also assert this.
+1
I'd advocate for adding an InSpinlock or such at the same time, but admittedly
there's not really anything forcing that to happen together.
What would you do with the InSpinlock flag? Forbid palloc()'s etc. while
holding a spinlock? I guess, although I'm not too worried about that.
Spinlocks are not held for long.
- Heikki
