You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Upstream commit was 3887e9455f812035473eee1cba0cf9c237969998
The postmaster's code path for spawning a bgworker neglected to check
whether we already have the max number of live child processes. That's
a bit hard to hit, since it would necessarily be a transient condition;
but if we do, AssignPostmasterChildSlot() fails causing a postmaster
crash, as seen in a report from Bhargav Kamineni.
To fix, invoke canAcceptConnections() in the bgworker code path, as we
do in the other code paths that spawn children. Since we don't want
the same pmState tests in this case, add a child-process-type parameter
to canAcceptConnections() so that it can know what to do.
Back-patch to 9.5. In principle the same hazard exists in 9.4, but the
code is enough different that this patch wouldn't quite fix it there.
Given the tiny usage of bgworkers in that branch it doesn't seem worth
creating a variant patch for it.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18733.1570382257@sss.pgh.pa.us
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
…pawning a bgworker
Summary:
Upstream commit was 3887e9455f812035473eee1cba0cf9c237969998
commit message was:
The postmaster's code path for spawning a bgworker neglected to check
whether we already have the max number of live child processes. That's
a bit hard to hit, since it would necessarily be a transient condition;
but if we do, AssignPostmasterChildSlot() fails causing a postmaster
crash, as seen in a report from Bhargav Kamineni.
To fix, invoke canAcceptConnections() in the bgworker code path, as we
do in the other code paths that spawn children. Since we don't want
the same pmState tests in this case, add a child-process-type parameter
to canAcceptConnections() so that it can know what to do.
Back-patch to 9.5. In principle the same hazard exists in 9.4, but the
code is enough different that this patch wouldn't quite fix it there.
Given the tiny usage of bgworkers in that branch it doesn't seem worth
creating a variant patch for it.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18733.1570382257@sss.pgh.pa.us
Test Plan: Existing test suite
Reviewers: plee
Reviewed By: plee
Subscribers: yql
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.dev.yugabyte.com/D19475
Jira Link: DB-3461
Description
Upstream commit was 3887e9455f812035473eee1cba0cf9c237969998
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: