From: | Salvador Jacinto <salvadorjacinto88(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | David Kohn <djk447(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #15036: Un-killable queries Hanging in BgWorkerShutdown |
Date: | 2018-02-08 02:35:51 |
Message-ID: | CAO6GgynS-ih8sC74cc2ssBufi84gF0X9tvTqKt35T7v0RUTRbg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
AMANHÃ BEREMOS
Em 07/02/2018 8:35 PM, "Thomas Munro" <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
escreveu:
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 7:06 AM, David Kohn <djk447(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > I'm not clear on when we do a SetLatch on those message queues during a
> > cancel of parallel workers, and a number of other things that could
> > definitely invalidate this analysis, but I think there could be a
> plausible
> > explanation in there somewhere.
>
> shm_mq_detach_internal() does SetLatch(&victim->procLatch) ("victim"
> being the counterparty process) after setting mq_detached. So ideally
> no one should ever be able to wait forever on a queue from which the
> other end has detached, but perhaps there is some race condition style
> bug lurking in here. I'm going to do some testing and see if I can
> break this...
>
> > Thanks for the help on this, I hope this is helpful and do let me know
> if a
> > stacktrace or anything else would be helpful on my end.
>
> Yeah stack traces would be great, if you can.
>
> --
> Thomas Munro
> http://www.enterprisedb.com
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-02-08 03:02:02 | Re: PostgreSQL crashes with SIGSEGV |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-02-08 00:41:48 | Re: PostgreSQL crashes with SIGSEGV |