Re: We shouldn't signal process groups with SIGQUIT

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Subject: Re: We shouldn't signal process groups with SIGQUIT
Date: 2023-02-14 22:23:32
Message-ID: 20230214222332.GB1350572@nathanxps13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 12:47:12PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> Not really related: I do wonder how often we end up self deadlocking in
> quickdie(), due to the ereport() not beeing reentrant. We'll "fix" it soon
> after, due to postmasters SIGKILL. Perhaps we should turn on
> send_abort_for_kill on CI?

+1, this seems like it'd be useful in general. I'm guessing this will
require a bit of work on the CI side to generate the backtrace.

--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2023-02-14 22:27:15 Re: Can we do something to help stop users mistakenly using force_parallel_mode?
Previous Message Nathan Bossart 2023-02-14 22:05:18 Re: Change xl_hash_vacuum_one_page.ntuples from int to uint16