| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Shay Rojansky <roji(at)roji(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Some 9.5beta2 backend processes not terminating properly? |
| Date: | 2015-12-30 17:50:58 |
| Message-ID: | 18896.1451497858@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2015-12-30 12:30:43 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Nor OS X. Ugh. My first thought was that ac1d7945f broke this, but
>> that's only in HEAD not 9.5, so some earlier change must be responsible.
> The backtrace in
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/CADT4RqBo79_0Vx%3D-%2By%3DnFv3zdnm_-CgGzbtSv9LhxrFEoYMVFg%40mail.gmail.com
> seems to indicate that it's really WaitLatchOrSocket() not noticing the
> socket is closed.
Right, and what I was wondering was whether adding the additional wait-for
condition had exposed some pre-existing flaw in the Windows latch code.
But that's not it, so we're left with the conclusion that we broke
something that used to work.
Are we sure this is a 9.5-only bug? Shay, can you try 9.4 branch tip
and see if it misbehaves? Can anyone else reproduce the problem?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shay Rojansky | 2015-12-30 17:54:19 | Re: Some 9.5beta2 backend processes not terminating properly? |
| Previous Message | Stas Kelvich | 2015-12-30 17:49:34 | Re: Tsvector editing functions |