From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Christian Schröder <cs(at)deriva(dot)de>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: (Never?) Kill Postmaster? |
Date: | 2007-11-01 21:28:15 |
Message-ID: | 15659.1193952495@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Tom, is it possible the backend was doing something that couldn't be
> immediately interrupted, like a long wait on IO or something?
Sherlock Holmes said that theorizing in advance of the data is a capital
mistake...
What we can be reasonably certain of is that that backend wasn't
reaching any CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() macros. Whether it was hung up
waiting for something, or caught in a tight loop somewhere, is
impossible to say without more data than we have. AFAIR the OP didn't
even mention whether the backend appeared to be consuming CPU cycles
(which'd be a pretty fair tip about which of those to believe, but still
not enough to guess *where* the problem is). A gdb backtrace would tell
us more.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jorge Godoy | 2007-11-01 22:06:51 | Re: Populating large DB from Perl script |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-11-01 21:22:12 | Re: Scrolling cursors in PL/PgSQL |