Re: [HACKERS] Re: Reducing sema usage (was Postmaster dies with many child processes)

From: "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: Reducing sema usage (was Postmaster dies with many child processes)
Date: 1999-02-01 12:46:21
Message-ID: 36B5A21D.72A063FD@alumni.caltech.edu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Hmm. If that's true, then the failure to get a sema would occur very
> early in the new backend's lifetime, before it's had a chance to
> create any trouble. Maybe the very easiest solution to the sema issue
> is to make the new backend send a failure report to its client and
> then exit(0) instead of exit(1), so that the postmaster considers it a
> clean exit rather than a crash...

Sounds like the cleanest solution too. If it pans out, I like it...

- Tom

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas G. Lockhart 1999-02-01 13:19:41 Re: [COMMITTERS] [WEBMASTER] 'www/html main.html'
Previous Message Hiroshi Inoue 1999-02-01 09:17:52 RE: [HACKERS] READ COMMITTED isolevel is implemented ...