| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Can a child process detect postmaster death when in pg_usleep? |
| Date: | 2021-06-28 15:01:57 |
| Message-ID: | 162764.1624892517@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:04 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>> On top of that, not reacting on signals can be
>> interesting to keep as a behavior for developers?
> Yeah, it can be useful at times as it enables debugging even when the
> postmaster dies.
Dunno ... I cannot recall ever having had that as a debugging requirement
in a couple of decades worth of PG bug-chasing. If the postmaster is
dying, you generally want to deal with that before bothering with child
processes. Moreover, child processes that don't go awy when the
postmaster does are a very nasty problem, because they could screw up
subsequent debugging work.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2021-06-28 15:43:01 | Re: code fork June 28th |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-06-28 14:56:30 | Re: pgindent run |