| From: | Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: recovery is stuck when children are not processing SIGQUIT from previous crash |
| Date: | 2009-11-12 15:34:53 |
| Message-ID: | e51f66da0911120734u2e65a031s5354e5fd133c4d73@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
On 11/12/09, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On 11/12/09, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> The other thought is that quickdie should block signals before
> >> starting to do anything.
>
> > There would still be possibility of recursive syslog() calls.
> > Shouldn't we fix that too?
>
>
> That's what the signal block would do.
usual elog
syslog
<signal>
quickdie
block signals
syslog
You talked about blocking in quickdie(), but you'd need
to block in elog().
--
marko
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-11-12 15:45:45 | Re: recovery is stuck when children are not processing SIGQUIT from previous crash |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-11-12 15:24:45 | Re: recovery is stuck when children are not processing SIGQUIT from previous crash |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-11-12 15:45:45 | Re: recovery is stuck when children are not processing SIGQUIT from previous crash |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-11-12 15:28:57 | Re: PL/Python array support |