| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Craig A(dot) James" <cjames(at)modgraph-usa(dot)com>, Russell Smith <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Postgres server crash |
| Date: | 2006-11-16 18:10:31 |
| Message-ID: | 19528.1163700631@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> writes:
> Craig A. James wrote:
>> It can't be a coincidence that these were the only two processes in a
>> SELECT operation. Does the server disable signals at critical points?
> If a "kill -9" as root doesn't get rid of them, I think I'm right in
> saying that it's a kernel-level problem rather than something else.
I didn't actually see Craig say anywhere that he'd tried "kill -9" on
those backends. If he did and it didn't do anything, then clearly they
were in some kind of uninterruptable wait, which is certainly evidence
of a kernel or hardware issue. If he didn't do "kill -9" then we don't
really know what the issue was --- it's not improbable that they were
stuck in some loop not containing a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() test.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-11-16 18:14:01 | Re: Postgres server crash |
| Previous Message | Jean-Max Reymond | 2006-11-16 17:39:28 | Re: Keeping processes open for re-use |