Re: No core file generated after PostgresNode->start

From: Andy Fan <zhihui(dot)fan1213(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: No core file generated after PostgresNode->start
Date: 2020-05-12 10:14:09
Message-ID: CAKU4AWqoUa6Lk=AO6h_m5pn0OpFLpKpN3r7wBEiExkoQB9anoQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 3:36 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 11:21 PM Andy Fan <zhihui(dot)fan1213(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > Looks this doesn't mean a crash. If the test case(subscription/t/
> 013_partition.pl)
> > failed, test framework kill some process, which leads the above
> message. So you can
> > ignore this issue now. Thanks
>
> I think there might be a real issue here someplace, though, because I
> couldn't get a core dump last week when I did have a crash happening
> locally.

I forget to say the failure happens on my modified version, I guess this is
what
happened in my case (subscription/t/013_partition.pl ).

1. It need to read data from slave, however it get ERROR, elog(ERROR, ..)
rather crash.
2. The test framework knows the case failed, so it kill the primary in
some way.
3. The primary raises the error below.

2020-05-11 09:37:40.778 CST [69541] sub_viaroot WARNING: terminating
connection because of crash of another server process

2020-05-11 09:37:40.778 CST [69541] sub_viaroot DETAIL: The postmaster
has commanded this server process to roll back the current transaction and
exit,
because another server process exited abnormally and possibly corrupted
shared memory.

Finally I get the root cause by looking into the error log in slave.
After I fix
my bug, the issue gone.

Best Regards
Andy Fan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrey Lepikhov 2020-05-12 10:24:18 Re: Global snapshots
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2020-05-12 09:35:27 Re: Problem with logical replication