| From: | Neha Khatri <nehakhatri5(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <julien(dot)rouhaud(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: strange parallel query behavior after OOM crashes |
| Date: | 2017-04-10 18:32:52 |
| Message-ID: | CAFO0U+_FfXGyyKL723+-UCXXbiG485CPKE5v__nwKwkDnzcaeA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 1. Forget BGW_NEVER_RESTART workers in
> ResetBackgroundWorkerCrashTimes() rather than leaving them around to
> be cleaned up after the conclusion of the restart, so that they go
> away before rather than after shared memory is reset.
Now with this, would it still be required to forget BGW_NEVER_RESTART
workers in maybe_start_bgworker():
if (rw->rw_crashed_at != 0)
{
if (rw->rw_worker.bgw_restart_time == BGW_NEVER_RESTART)
{
ForgetBackgroundWorker(&iter);
continue;
}
......
}
Regards,
Neha
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Álvaro Hernández Tortosa | 2017-04-10 18:33:54 | Re: Letting the client choose the protocol to use during a SASL exchange |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-04-10 18:32:30 | Re: Some thoughts about SCRAM implementation |