Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Odd behavior in regression test?

From: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us (Bruce Momjian)
Cc: lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: Odd behavior in regression test?
Date: 1998-06-14 22:11:55
Message-ID: 199806142211.SAA02851@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> > Is it possible that the recent change from fork/exec to just fork leaves
> > the postmaster more exposed? I can imagine that it might, but don't have
> > any direct experience with it so am just guessing. Any other ideas? Do
> > people see this on other platforms? This is the first time I can recall
> > seeing the postmaster go away on a crash of a backend (but of course my
> > memory isn't what it should be :)
> 
> My guess is that the postmaster can no longer restart its backends after
> one of them aborts.  Something I need to check into perhaps.

Does your postmaster stop running, or does it crash any backend that is
started.  I am seeing the latter, and the cause appears to be that the
postmaster environment after the restart of the shared memory is not
proper for a backend.  I am looking into it.

-- 
Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: David GouldDate: 1998-06-14 22:35:13
Subject: performance tests, initial results
Previous:From: Vadim MikheevDate: 1998-06-14 06:35:31
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] NOTICE:AbortTransaction and not in in-progress state

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group