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

Re: Is PQreset() proper ?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Is PQreset() proper ?
Date: 2000-12-20 19:28:01
Message-ID: 8937.977340481@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> postmaster: BackendStartup: pid 395 user reindex db reindex socket 5
> DEBUG:  exit(2)
> postmaster: reaping dead processes...
> postmaster: CleanupProc: pid 394 exited with status 512
> Server process (pid 394) exited with status 512 at Tue Dec 19 20:12:41 2000
> Terminating any active server processes...
> postmaster: CleanupProc: sending SIGUSR1 to process 395
> postmaster child[395]: starting with (postgres -d2 -v131072 -p reindex )

This isn't PQreset()'s fault that I can see.  This is a race condition
caused by bogosity in PostgresMain --- it enables SIGUSR1 before it's
set up the correct signal handler for same.  The postmaster should have
started the child process with all signals blocked, so SIGUSR1 will be
held off until the child explicitly enables it; but it does so a few
lines too soon.  Will fix.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-12-20 19:42:55
Subject: Re: Sample databases?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-12-20 19:13:29
Subject: Re: Isn't init_irels() dangerous ?

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