From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com> |
Cc: | "'Bruce Momjian '" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "'Jan Wieck '" <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, "'pgsql-patches(at)postgreSQL(dot)org '" <pgsql-patches(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization |
Date: | 2004-01-09 06:36:43 |
Message-ID: | 21280.1073630203@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com> writes:
> Actually, if I was going to argue anything, I'd say that if a backend goes
> nuts and zeroes the whole shmem segment you've probably some bigger things
> to worry about (Aside: Would postgres actually recover from such an
> occurence? BTW, I'd be pretty impressed if it did, but not all that
> surprised ;-).
It should, although there are limits (for instance, if someone is
actively writing out a page of WAL at the same time the bogus backend
comes by and zeroes that buffer, you might lose WAL entries for
already-committed transactions, which would be unhappy-making).
As a developer, though, I crash backends all the time, and I can say
that this mechanism is indeed pretty robust. The postmaster never goes
down (what, never? well, hardly ever) and it's *extremely* seldom that
a crash results in on-disk corruption, because the postmaster generally
manages to kill the other backends before any corruption in shared
memory gets propagated to disk.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zach Irmen | 2004-01-09 07:35:34 | Re: psql \i handling ~ in specified file name |
Previous Message | Claudio Natoli | 2004-01-09 06:26:39 | Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization |