Re: PG in container w/ pid namespace is init, process exits cause restart

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PG in container w/ pid namespace is init, process exits cause restart
Date: 2021-05-03 20:20:43
Message-ID: 3840931.1620073243@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2021-05-03 15:37:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> And who's to say that ignoring unexpected child deaths is okay,
>> anyway? We could hardly be sure that the dead process hadn't been
>> connected to shared memory.

> I don't think checking the exit status of unexpected children to see
> whether we should crash-restart out of that concern is meaningful: We
> don't know that the child didn't do anything bad with shared memory when
> they exited with exit(1), instead of exit(2).

Hmm, by that argument, any unexpected child PID in reaper() ought to be
grounds for a restart, regardless of its exit code. Which'd be fine by
me. I'm on board with being more restrictive about this, not less so.

> Do you feel the same about having different logging between the "known"
> and "unknown" child processes?

No objection to logging such cases more clearly, for sure.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2021-05-03 20:23:07 Re: PG in container w/ pid namespace is init, process exits cause restart
Previous Message Andres Freund 2021-05-03 20:12:34 Re: PG in container w/ pid namespace is init, process exits cause restart