Re: Further info : Very high load average but no cpu utilization ?

From: "Rajesh Kumar Mallah(dot)" <mallah(at)trade-india(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Further info : Very high load average but no cpu utilization ?
Date: 2002-05-13 04:50:07
Message-ID: 200205131020.07302.mallah@trade-india.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql

Well,

Its advocated "dont kill -9 the postmaster" and i rarely do that.

Postmaster tends to be immortal ,
And it is *not* so only for the case when postmaster is trying to
write past 2GB limit ,
I have only recently started logging postmaster to that extent.

regds
mallah.

On Sunday 12 May 2002 09:07 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> writes:
> > Not even kill -9 worked? I had that happen too but I thought it was a
> > problem with AIX. Kill -9 is supposed to kill any process. It can't be
> > caught. Is it possible that PostgreSQL is doing something that makes it
> > that unkillable?
>
> Could there be a kernel bug associated with processes that are trying to
> write past the 2Gb limit? The postmaster is certainly not doing
> anything deliberate to make itself unkillable, but on some platforms
> kill -9 will not work on processes that are wedged in a system call...
>
> regards, tom lane

--
Rajesh Kumar Mallah,
Project Manager (Development)
Infocom Network Limited, New Delhi
phone: +91(11)6152172 (221) (L) ,9811255597 (M)

Visit http://www.trade-india.com ,
India's Leading B2B eMarketplace.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2002-05-13 05:14:46 Re: TRUNCATE
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-05-13 04:31:33 Re: SRF patch (was Re: [HACKERS] troubleshooting pointers)

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Wolfgang.Fuertbauer 2002-05-13 06:35:19 Re: having trouble w/ having clause...
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-05-12 15:37:51 Re: Further info : Very high load average but no cpu utilization ?