Re: SIGTERM -> elog(FATAL) -> proc_exit() is probably a bad idea

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
Cc: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: SIGTERM -> elog(FATAL) -> proc_exit() is probably a bad idea
Date: 2001-01-16 17:38:58
Message-ID: 12894.979666738@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> writes:
>> Because I think turning an elog(ERROR) into a system-wide crash is
>> not a good idea ;-). If you are correct that this behavior
>> is necessary for WAL-related critical sections, then indeed we need
>> two kinds of critical sections, one that just holds off cancel/die
>> response and one that turns elog(ERROR) into a dangerous weapon.
>> I'm going to wait and see Vadim's response before I do anything ...

> I've tried to move "dangerous" ops with non-zero probability of
> elog(ERROR) (eg new file block allocation) out of crit sections.
> Anyway we need in ERROR-->STOP for safety when changes aren't logged.

Why is that safer than just treating an ERROR as an ERROR? It seems to
me there's a real risk of a crash/restart loop if we force a restart
whenever we see an xlog-related problem.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert E. Bruccoleri 2001-01-16 18:27:28 Performance degradation in PostgreSQL 7.1beta3 vs 6.5.3
Previous Message Mikheev, Vadim 2001-01-16 17:28:45 RE: SIGTERM -> elog(FATAL) -> proc_exit() is probably a bad idea