-
- Downloads
Don't use bgw_main even to specify in-core bgworker entrypoints.
On EXEC_BACKEND builds, this can fail if ASLR is in use. Backpatch to 9.5. On master, completely remove the bgw_main field completely, since there is no situation in which it is safe for an EXEC_BACKEND build. On 9.6 and 9.5, leave the field intact to avoid breaking things for third-party code that doesn't care about working under EXEC_BACKEND. Prior to 9.5, there are no in-core bgworker entrypoints. Petr Jelinek, reviewed by me. Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/09d8ad33-4287-a09b-a77f-77f8761adb5e@2ndquadrant.com
Showing
- doc/src/sgml/bgworker.sgml 9 additions, 27 deletionsdoc/src/sgml/bgworker.sgml
- src/backend/access/transam/parallel.c 3 additions, 3 deletionssrc/backend/access/transam/parallel.c
- src/backend/postmaster/bgworker.c 53 additions, 28 deletionssrc/backend/postmaster/bgworker.c
- src/backend/replication/logical/launcher.c 4 additions, 2 deletionssrc/backend/replication/logical/launcher.c
- src/include/access/parallel.h 2 additions, 0 deletionssrc/include/access/parallel.h
- src/include/postmaster/bgworker.h 2 additions, 3 deletionssrc/include/postmaster/bgworker.h
- src/test/modules/test_shm_mq/setup.c 0 additions, 1 deletionsrc/test/modules/test_shm_mq/setup.c
- src/test/modules/worker_spi/worker_spi.c 2 additions, 2 deletionssrc/test/modules/worker_spi/worker_spi.c
Loading
Please register or sign in to comment