On 07/05/14 20:37, Robert Haas wrote:
At a minimum, it's got to be better than the status quo, where shared
memory is accessible throughout the entire lifetime of
non-shmem-access background workers.
Seems reasonable to me, it might need to be revisited to at least try to
figure out if we can
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> I've complained about this problem a few times before: there's nothing
>> to prevent a background worker which doesn't request shared memory
>> access from calling InitProcess() and then accessing shared memory
>> anyway. T
Robert Haas writes:
> I've complained about this problem a few times before: there's nothing
> to prevent a background worker which doesn't request shared memory
> access from calling InitProcess() and then accessing shared memory
> anyway. The attached patch is a first crack at fixing it.
> Com
I've complained about this problem a few times before: there's nothing
to prevent a background worker which doesn't request shared memory
access from calling InitProcess() and then accessing shared memory
anyway. The attached patch is a first crack at fixing it.
Unfortunately, there's still a wind
