From: | Peter T Mount <psqlhack(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu, hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: Odd behavior in regression test? |
Date: | 1998-06-13 10:05:19 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.3.95.980613110445.16365C-100000@retep.org.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 13 Jun 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >
> > > Is it possible that the recent change from fork/exec to just fork leaves
> > > the postmaster more exposed? I can imagine that it might, but don't have
> > > any direct experience with it so am just guessing. Any other ideas? Do
> > > people see this on other platforms? This is the first time I can recall
> > > seeing the postmaster go away on a crash of a backend (but of course my
> > > memory isn't what it should be :)
> >
> > My guess is that the postmaster can no longer restart its backends after
> > one of them aborts. Something I need to check into perhaps.
> >
>
> I just tried killing a running backend, and could not get the postmaster
> to disappear.
Try generating a segmentation fault in a loadable module... works
everytime here.
--
Peter T Mount peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk or petermount(at)earthling(dot)net
Main Homepage: http://www.retep.org.uk
************ Someday I may rebuild this signature completely ;-) ************
Work Homepage: http://www.maidstone.gov.uk Work EMail: peter(at)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chul Su Park | 1998-06-13 10:20:35 | Re: [HACKERS] [QUESTIONS] builtin lo_unlink(int4)? why int4 not oid? |
Previous Message | Peter T Mount | 1998-06-13 10:04:32 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: Odd behavior in regression test? |