Re: Unexpected "shared memory block is still in use"

On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 04:46:40PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Will go fix/backpatch in a minute.
> 
> Done now, but while thinking more about the issue, I had an idea: why is
> it that we base the shmem key on the postmaster's port number, and not
> on the data directory's inode number?  Using the port number not only
> increases the risk of collisions (though admittedly only in testing
> situations), but it *decreases* our ability to detect real conflicts.
> Consider case where DBA wants to change the installation's port number,
> and he edits postgresql.conf, but then uses "kill -9 && rm postmaster.pid"
> rather than some saner way of stopping the old postmaster.  When he
> starts the new one, it won't detect any remaining children of the old
> postmaster because it'll be looking in the wrong range of shmem keys.
> It seems like something tied to the data directory's identity would
> be much more trustworthy.

Good point.  Since we now ignore (SHMSTATE_FOREIGN) any segment that bears
(st_dev,st_ino) not matching $PGDATA, the change you describe couldn't make us
fail to detect a real conflict or miss a cleanup opportunity.  It would reduce
the ability to test sysv_shmem.c; I suppose one could add a debug GUC to
override the start of the key space.

> I think the reason for doing it this way originally was to allow
> one to identify which shmem segment is which in "ipcs -m" output.
> But that was back when having to clean up shmem segments manually
> was still a common task.  It's been a long time since I can remember
> needing to figure out which was which.

I don't see that presenting a problem these days, agreed.