On 2017-09-19 13:00:33 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > That'd not be that a crazy amount of > > shared memory that'd need to be touched in shared memory, ... > > 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(), ... Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
