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

From: Peter T Mount <psqlhack(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk>
To: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu, hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: Odd behavior in regression test?
Date: 1998-06-13 10:05:19
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.3.95.980613110445.16365C-100000@retep.org.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, 13 Jun 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > >
> > > 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.
> >
>
> I just tried killing a running backend, and could not get the postmaster
> to disappear.

Try generating a segmentation fault in a loadable module... works
everytime here.

--
Peter T Mount peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk or petermount(at)earthling(dot)net
Main Homepage: http://www.retep.org.uk
************ Someday I may rebuild this signature completely ;-) ************
Work Homepage: http://www.maidstone.gov.uk Work EMail: peter(at)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chul Su Park 1998-06-13 10:20:35 Re: [HACKERS] [QUESTIONS] builtin lo_unlink(int4)? why int4 not oid?
Previous Message Peter T Mount 1998-06-13 10:04:32 Re: [HACKERS] Re: Odd behavior in regression test?