| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Oskari Saarenmaa <os(at)ohmu(dot)fi>, Ants Aasma <ants(dot)aasma(at)eesti(dot)ee>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: emergency outage requiring database restart |
| Date: | 2016-11-01 14:05:45 |
| Message-ID: | 20161101140545.sgcv4kiqt5wp3w66@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-11-01 09:56:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> The real problem with Oskari's theory is that it requires not merely
> busted, but positively brain-dead error handling in the shell and/or
> sqsh, ie ignoring open() failures altogether. That seems kind of
> unlikely. Still, I suspect he might be onto something --- there must
> be some reason you can reproduce the issue in production and not in
> your test bed, and number-of-open-files is as good a theory as I've
> heard.
I've seen shell code akin to
exec >16 somefile # assume fd 16 is unused
more than one :(
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-11-01 14:10:53 | Re: Improve output of BitmapAnd EXPLAIN ANALYZE |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-11-01 13:56:45 | Re: emergency outage requiring database restart |