Re: recovery is stuck when children are not processing SIGQUIT from previous crash

From: Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: recovery is stuck when children are not processing SIGQUIT from previous crash
Date: 2009-11-12 20:37:03
Message-ID: e51f66da0911121237s6d0f0316sde11e4a3e6038b8b@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers

On 11/12/09, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > You talked about blocking in quickdie(), but you'd need
> > to block in elog().
>
> I'm not really particularly worried about that case. By that logic,
> we could not use quickdie at all, because any part of the system
> might be doing something that wouldn't survive being interrupted.

Not really - we'd need to care only about parts that quickdie()
(or any other signal handler) wants to use. Which basically means
elog() only.

OK, full elog() is a beast, but why would SIGQUIT handler need full
elog()? How about we export minimal log-writing function and make
that signal-safe - that is, drop message if already active. This
will excange potential crash/deadlock with lost msg which seems
slightly better behaviour.

--
marko

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-11-12 20:58:05 Re: recovery is stuck when children are not processing SIGQUIT from previous crash
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2009-11-12 20:01:26 Re: recovery is stuck when children are not processing SIGQUIT from previous crash

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2009-11-12 20:39:48 Re: EOL for 7.4?
Previous Message Bernd Helmle 2009-11-12 20:35:17 Re: EOL for 7.4?