Re: DSM segment handle generation in background workers

Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>

From: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-10-09T02:21:36Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:53 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 1:17 AM Thomas Munro
> > <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> >> That's because the bgworker startup path doesn't contain a call to
> >> srandom(...distinguishing stuff...), unlike BackendRun().  I suppose
> >> do_start_bgworker() could gain a similar call... or perhaps that call
> >> should be moved into InitPostmasterChild().  If we put it in there
> >> right after MyStartTime is assigned a new value, we could use the same
> >> incantation that PostmasterMain() uses.
>
> > Maybe something like this?
>
> I think the bit with
>
> #ifndef HAVE_STRONG_RANDOM
>         random_seed = 0;
>         random_start_time.tv_usec = 0;
> #endif
>
> should also be done in every postmaster child, no?  If we want to hide the
> postmaster's state from child processes, we ought to hide it from all.

Ok, here is a sketch patch with a new function InitRandomSeeds() to do
that.  It is called from PostmasterMain(), InitPostmasterChild() and
InitStandaloneProcess() for consistency.

It seems a bit strange to me that internal infrastructure shares a
random number generator with SQL-callable functions random() and
setseed(), though I'm not saying it's harmful.

While wondering if something like this should be back-patched, I
noticed that SQL random() is declared as parallel-restricted, which is
good: it means we aren't exposing a random() function that generates
the same values in every parallel worker.  So I think this is probably
just a minor nuisance and should probably only be pushed to master, or
at most to 11 (since Parallel Hash likes to create DSM segments in
workers), unless someone can think of a more serious way this can hurt
you.

(Tangentially:  I suppose it might be useful to have a different SQL
random number function that is parallel safe, that isn't associated
with a user-controllable seed, and whose seed is different in each
backend.)

-- 
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com

Commits

  1. Increase the number of possible random seeds per time period.

  2. Refactor pid, random seed and start time initialization.

  3. Increase the number of different values used when seeding random().