Re: We shouldn't signal process groups with SIGQUIT

Hi,

On 2023-02-15 09:57:41 -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 04:20:59PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2023-02-14 14:23:32 -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > They're already generated for all current platforms. It's possible that debug
> > info for some system libraries is missing, but the most important one (like
> > libc) should be available.
> >
> > Since yesterday the cfbot website allows to easily find the coredumps, too:
> > http://cfbot.cputube.org/highlights/core-7.html
>
> Oh, that's nifty. Any reason not to enable send_abort_for_crash, too?

I think it'd be too noisy. Right now you get just a core dump of the crashed
process, but if we set send_abort_for_crash we'd end up with a lot of core
dumps, making it harder to know what to look at.

We should never need the send_abort_for_kill path, so I don't think the noise
issue applies to the same degree.

Greetings,

Andres