Hi,
On Wed, 23 Sept 2026 at 17:53, Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 19/09/2026 22:12, Ayush Tiwari wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I found two more shmem attachment issues in single-user mode after
> > the recent fixes. Patches attached.
> >
> > With ShmemInitStruct(), a second call for the same name and size errors
> > out with "already initialized". We only look for the old allocation if
> > IsUnderPostmaster is true, so a standalone backend goes straight down
> > the allocation path again.
> >
> > 0001 drops that condition. It fixes postmaster-startup reattachment
> > too, which I did hesitate over at first. But AFAICS that was supported
> > before the refactoring, and it's what the legacy API still promises.
> > So I'd lean towards restoring that behaviour in both places. Is there
> > a reason not to? (The size and initialization checks are still there.)
>
> Hmm, so the scenario is:
>
> 1. Start postgres in single-user mode
> 2. Load an extension that calls ShmemInitStruct() to alloc a shmem area
> 3. The extension calls ShmemInitStruct() again, to get a pointer to the
> already-initialized area.
>
> I didn't think of that scenario. There's no reason to not support that,
> although it's pretty weird for an extension to do that. One use case
> might be to have a shared struct between two cooperating extensions, so
> that they both call ShmemInitStruct() to get a pointer to the same area.
> I'm not aware of any extensions actually doing that, though.
>
> I'll commit that fix, thanks!
Thanks for looking into it.
> > The other one is a bit odd: ask for an existing area with
> > SHMEM_ATTACH_UNKNOWN_SIZE after startup in single-user mode, and we
> > tell you it "cannot be used during startup".
> >
> > IIUC, the distinction we need here is whether we're still working out
> > the initial shmem requirements, not whether we have a postmaster.
> > 0002 adds SRS_REQUESTING_AFTER_STARTUP for that. I couldn't see a clean
> > way to reuse SRS_REQUESTING without mixing those cases up.
> >
> > I'm a bit on the fence about adding another state just for this.
> > With the PG19 release getting close, I thought I'd send this out for
> > feedback before spending more time iterating on it. Does the extra
> > state seem like the right approach?
>
> Extra state sounds reasonable. Thanks, I'll take a closer look, and I'll
> double-check all the other places in shmem.c where we use
> IsUnderPostmaster, too.
>
> The IsUnderPostmaster variable is deceptive. It's easy to forget about
> single-user code, and incorrectly assume that IsUnderPostmaster == true
> means you're a backend and IsUnderPostmaster == false means you're
> postmaster. I think that's what happened to me here and with the
> previous single-user mode bugs. I remember I've struggled to keep that
> in mind in the past too. We should perhaps replace IsUnderPostmaster
> with a three-valued enum or something (postmaster, backend, single-user
> backend).
I agree. It's v v deceptive.
[Though I did not know much about single user modes till tripping]
> We got that wrong in pg_get_shmem_pagesize(), too, also in previous
> versions:
>
> backend> select * from pg_get_shmem_allocations_numa();
> 1: name (typeid = 25, len = -1, typmod = -1, byval = f)
> 2: numa_node (typeid = 23, len = 4, typmod = -1, byval = t)
> 3: size (typeid = 20, len = 8, typmod = -1, byval = t)
> ----
> TRAP: failed Assert("IsUnderPostmaster"), File:
> "../src/backend/storage/ipc/shmem.c", Line: 731, PID: 121579
Hmm, I had posted a patch for a nearby place [1]
Regards,
Ayush
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJTYsWV-%3Dw5_oFgCnfAixWGc%3DgMa2pkDinLyGLsb4sKcDaf2FA%40mail.gmail.com
