Re: SIGUSR1 pingpong between master na autovacum launcher causes crash

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'd still like to have some fork-rate-limiting behavior in there
>> somewhere. However, it might make sense for the avlauncher to do that
>> rather than the postmaster. Does that idea seem more implementable?

> Well, there's already rate limiting in the launcher:

[ scratches head... ] You know, as I was writing that email the concept
seemed a bit familiar. But if that's in there, how the heck did the
launcher manage to bounce back to the postmaster before the latter got
out of its signal handler? Have you tested this actually works as
intended? Could Zdenek have tested a version that lacks it?

> Does it just need a longer delay?

Maybe, but I think we need to understand exactly what happened first.

regards, tom lane