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

Re: Unportable implementation of background worker start

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: cm(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, remi_zara(at)mac(dot)com, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Unportable implementation of background worker start
Date: 2017-04-24 22:14:41
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2017-04-24 17:33:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> coypu's problem is unrelated:

> Note I was linking the 9.6 report form coypu, not HEAD. Afaics the 9.6
> failure is the same as gharial's mode of failure.

[ looks closer... ]  Oh: the 9.6 run occurred first, and the failures on
HEAD and 9.5 are presumably follow-on damage because the stuck postmaster
hasn't released semaphores.

A bit of googling establishes that NetBSD 5.1 has a broken pselect

That says they fixed it in later versions but not 5.1 :-(

I can't find any similar smoking gun on the web for HPUX, but
I'd fully expect their bug database to be behind a paywall.

What I'm inclined to do is to revert the pselect change but not the other,
to see if that fixes these two animals.  If it does, we could look into
blacklisting these particular platforms when choosing pselect.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andres FreundDate: 2017-04-24 22:19:01
Subject: Re: Unportable implementation of background worker start
Previous:From: Petr JelinekDate: 2017-04-24 21:51:36
Subject: Re: walsender & parallelism

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