| From: | newsreader(at)mediaone(dot)net |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)or |
| Subject: | Re: FATAL 1 |
| Date: | 2001-08-10 00:58:04 |
| Message-ID: | 20010809205538.A5877@dragon.universe |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, Aug 10, 2001 at 12:42:33AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> newsreader(at)mediaone(dot)net writes:
>
> > I think that postmaster should log such instances as FATAL 1.
>
> IIRC, the kernel sends a SIGKILL signal in that case, so the affected
> application doesn't have a chance to react, it just gets terminated
> immediately. If you want to monitor these events better you need to ask
Ok here is what I find in dmesg
------------
Out of Memory: Killed process 17534 (postmaster).
Out of Memory: Killed process 18228 (postmaster)
-----------
I think backends got killed instead of postmaster
Fact is postmaster did not die; it is still
running now and apparently survived the
out of memory event
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | newsreader | 2001-08-10 03:29:55 | Re: FATAL 1 |
| Previous Message | Susan Lane | 2001-08-10 00:29:07 | Database handle error |