| From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us (Bruce Momjian) |
| Cc: | lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: Odd behavior in regression test? |
| Date: | 1998-06-14 22:11:55 |
| Message-ID: | 199806142211.SAA02851@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > 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.
Does your postmaster stop running, or does it crash any backend that is
started. I am seeing the latter, and the cause appears to be that the
postmaster environment after the restart of the shared memory is not
proper for a backend. I am looking into it.
--
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Gould | 1998-06-14 22:35:13 | performance tests, initial results |
| Previous Message | Vadim Mikheev | 1998-06-14 06:35:31 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] NOTICE:AbortTransaction and not in in-progress state |