Re: pg crashing

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: "Roberts, Jon" <Jon(dot)Roberts(at)asurion(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg crashing
Date: 2008-08-01 11:59:27
Message-ID: 4892FA9F.4070901@hagander.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

Roberts, Jon wrote:
>> Roberts, Jon wrote:
>>>> Not having looked at the internals of db_link, I'd say it's
> certainly
>>>> possible that this is the reason for the failed restart. If db_link
> is
>>>> blocking something, the postmaster can't kill it off, and it'll
> still
>>> be
>>>> sitting there holding a reference to the shared memory segment.
>>>>
>>>> That said, it shouldn't be the reason why it's crashing in the
> first
>>>> place - just the reason why it won't restart properly.
>>>>
>>> Is this a problem in Unix? We are about 1 - 2 weeks away from
> moving
>>> this database to Solaris.
>> Not likely, but I'd test it anyway. If the issue is related to AV,
> it's
>> certainly fine - you won't be running AV on your Solaris. But more
>> importantly, Unix has actual support for signals and not just the fake
>> stuff we have on Win32, so it's likely that the postmaster will be
>> capable of killing the child processes.
>>
>
> Our AV program has been off for a while now and I haven't had a crash.
> I think part of the problem is how we have PostgreSQL installed and how
> eTrust is configured. We have the binaries installed on C:\program
> files\PostgreSQL\8.3\ and the data is located on E:\PostgreSQL\data\.
> We have eTrust excluding just E:\PostgreSQL\data\.
>
> I'm guessing the activity on the binaries causes some scanning which may
> have slowed down the cleanup enough to cause the crash to happen.

Yeah, that does seem like a reasonable explanation. Yet another reason
not to use AV on your database server ;-) And if you absolutely have to,
exclude the postgresql stuff.

Since we do re-execute postgres.exe for every new connection, it's quite
possible that the AV scanned it every single time, and it's a fairly
large EXE...

//Magnus

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Lennin Caro 2008-08-01 13:32:26 Re: eliminating records not in (select id ... so SLOW?
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2008-08-01 11:53:58 Re: Postgresql not using an index

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gregory Stark 2008-08-01 12:10:18 Re: Fixing the representation of ORDER BY/GROUP BY/DISTINCT
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2008-08-01 11:57:26 Re: So, what's the "base dn" in an LDAP URL again?