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

Re: Postgres server crash

From: Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>
To: "Craig A(dot) James" <cjames(at)modgraph-usa(dot)com>
Cc: Russell Smith <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au>,pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Postgres server crash
Date: 2006-11-16 17:29:58
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
Craig A. James wrote:
> By the way, in spite of my questions and concerns, I was *very* 
> impressed by the recovery process.  I know it might seem like old hat to 
> you guys to watch the WAL in action, and I know on a theoretical level 
> it's supposed to work, but watching it recover 150 separate databases, 
> and find and fix a couple of problems was very impressive.  It gives me 
> great confidence that I made the right choice to use Postgres.
> Richard Huxton wrote:
>>>>  2. Why didn't the database recover?  Why are there two processes
>>>>     that couldn't be killed?
>> I'm guessing it didn't recover *because* there were two processes that 
>> couldn't be killed. Responsibility for that falls to the 
>> operating-system. I've seen it most often with faulty drivers or 
>> hardware that's being communicated with/written to. However, see below.
> It can't be a coincidence that these were the only two processes in a 
> SELECT operation.  Does the server disable signals at critical points?

If a "kill -9" as root doesn't get rid of them, I think I'm right in 
saying that it's a kernel-level problem rather than something else.

   Richard Huxton
   Archonet Ltd

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Jean-Max ReymondDate: 2006-11-16 17:39:28
Subject: Re: Keeping processes open for re-use
Previous:From: Craig A. JamesDate: 2006-11-16 17:15:54
Subject: Re: Postgres server crash

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