From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Arseny Sher <a(dot)sher(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Subject: | Re: Parallel query hangs after a smart shutdown is issued |
Date: | 2020-08-14 14:32:15 |
Message-ID: | 574068.1597415535@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 4:45 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> After some more rethinking and testing, here's a v5 that feels
>> fairly final to me. I realized that the logic in canAcceptConnections
>> was kind of backwards: it's better to check the main pmState restrictions
>> first and then the smart-shutdown restrictions afterwards.
> LGTM. I tested this a bit today and it did what I expected for
> parallel queries and vacuum, on primary and standby.
Thanks for reviewing! I'll do the back-patching and push this today.
>> I'm assuming we want to back-patch this as far as 9.6, where parallel
>> query began to be a thing.
> Yeah. I mean, it's more radical than what I thought we'd be doing for
> this, but you could get into real trouble by running in smart shutdown
> mode without the autovac infrastructure alive.
Right. 99.99% of the time, that early shutdown doesn't really cause
any problems, which is how we've gotten away with it this long. But if
someone did leave session(s) running for a long time after issuing the
SIGTERM, the results could be bad --- and there's no obvious benefit
to the early shutdowns anyway.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-08-14 14:40:50 | Re: Inconsistent behavior of smart shutdown handling for queries with and without parallel workers |
Previous Message | Dmitry Dolgov | 2020-08-14 13:56:32 | Re: Autonomous database is coming to Postgres? |