From 810ac95b2ddcaea3b78ab1809cdcc8c522a27dc6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Andres Freund Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 00:31:03 -0500 Subject: [PATCH v5 6/7] postmaster: Adjust which processes we expect to have exited Comments and code stated that we expect checkpointer to have been signalled in case of immediate shutdown / fatal errors, but didn't treat archiver and walsenders the same. That doesn't seem right. I had started digging through the history to see where this oddity was introduced, but it's not the fault of a single commit. Instead treat archiver, checkpointer, and walsenders the same. Reviewed-by: Bertrand Drouvot Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/kgng5nrvnlv335evmsuvpnh354rw7qyazl73kdysev2cr2v5zu@m3cfzxicm5kp --- src/backend/postmaster/postmaster.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/postmaster/postmaster.c b/src/backend/postmaster/postmaster.c index 95eb989355c..37bb0ea4d7a 100644 --- a/src/backend/postmaster/postmaster.c +++ b/src/backend/postmaster/postmaster.c @@ -2918,16 +2918,20 @@ PostmasterStateMachine(void) /* * If we are doing crash recovery or an immediate shutdown then we - * expect the checkpointer to exit as well, otherwise not. + * expect archiver, checkpointer and walsender to exit as well, + * otherwise not. */ if (FatalError || Shutdown >= ImmediateShutdown) - targetMask = btmask_add(targetMask, B_CHECKPOINTER); + targetMask = btmask_add(targetMask, + B_CHECKPOINTER, + B_ARCHIVER, + B_WAL_SENDER); /* - * Walsenders and archiver will continue running; they will be - * terminated later after writing the checkpoint record. We also let - * dead-end children to keep running for now. The syslogger process - * exits last. + * Normally walsenders and archiver will continue running; they will + * be terminated later after writing the checkpoint record. We also + * let dead-end children to keep running for now. The syslogger + * process exits last. * * This assertion checks that we have covered all backend types, * either by including them in targetMask, or by noting here that they @@ -2938,13 +2942,17 @@ PostmasterStateMachine(void) BackendTypeMask remainMask = BTYPE_MASK_NONE; remainMask = btmask_add(remainMask, - B_WAL_SENDER, - B_ARCHIVER, B_DEAD_END_BACKEND, B_LOGGER); - /* checkpointer may or may not be in targetMask already */ - remainMask = btmask_add(remainMask, B_CHECKPOINTER); + /* + * Archiver, checkpointer and walsender may or may not be in + * targetMask already. + */ + remainMask = btmask_add(remainMask, + B_ARCHIVER, + B_CHECKPOINTER, + B_WAL_SENDER); /* these are not real postmaster children */ remainMask = btmask_add(remainMask, -- 2.48.1.76.g4e746b1a31.dirty