Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Race-condition with failed block-write?

From: Arjen van der Meijden <acm(at)tweakers(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Race-condition with failed block-write?
Date: 2005-09-13 21:41:36
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-bugs
On 13-9-2005 23:01, Tom Lane wrote:
> Arjen van der Meijden <acm(at)tweakers(dot)net> writes:
> That's all?  There's something awfully suspicious about that.  You're
> sure this is 8.0.3?  

When I do "select version();"

PostgreSQL 8.0.3 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC 
i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc (GCC) 3.3.5-20050130 (Gentoo Linux, ssp-, pie-

I checked the emerge.log from Gentoo and that sais I installed version 
8.0.3 at the 15th of August. So well before that September the 1st.

> AFAICS it is absolutely impossible for the 8.0
> postmaster.c code to emit "received smart shutdown request" after
> emitting "received fast shutdown request".  The SIGINT code looks like
> and the SIGTERM code looks like
> and there are no other places that change the value of Shutdown, and
> certainly FastShutdown > SmartShutdown.  So I wonder if something got
> lost in the log entries.

That'd surprise me, but it would explain this behaviour. I doubt though 
that much happened in those 11 seconds that are missing. It can't have 
been a start-up without logging, since it wouldn't have logged the 
shut-down then, would it?
Besides that, I normally start it and shut it down using the 
/etc/init.d-scripts. And that script issues a fast-shutdown, so a 
smart-shutdown should not be necessary anymore.

> Another question is why the postmaster didn't exit at 12:36:50.  It was
> not waiting on any backends, else it would not have launched the
> shutdown process (which is what emits the other two messages).
> [ thinks for a bit ... ]  I wonder if Shutdown ought to be marked
> volatile, since it is after all changed by a signal handler.  But given
> the way the postmaster is coded, this doesn't seem likely to be an issue.
> Basically all of the code runs with signals blocked.
> Can you try to reconstruct what you did on Sep 1, and see whether you
> can reproduce the above behavior?

The only time I really recall having trouble with shutting it down was 
when the memory had leaked up all system memory (at 9-9). I don't know 
what happened at 1-9 anymore, as far as I remember and can read back 
from the log I just (tried to) shut it down. Most likely I tried to shut 
it down to free up some extra memory for the postgres 8.1, running at 
that time, the 8.0.3 wasn't in use anyway.
I'll try and see if I can dig up more from the logs and see if I can 
test a few reasonable scenario's tomorrow though.

Best regards,


In response to


pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Arjen van der MeijdenDate: 2005-09-14 08:58:28
Subject: Re: Race-condition with failed block-write?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-09-13 21:01:37
Subject: Re: Race-condition with failed block-write?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group