| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Pacheco <dap(at)joyent(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: postmaster deadlock while logging after syslogger exited |
| Date: | 2017-11-06 20:35:03 |
| Message-ID: | 19239.1510000503@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
David Pacheco <dap(at)joyent(dot)com> writes:
> I ran into what appears to be a deadlock in the logging subsystem. It
> looks like what happened was that the syslogger process exited because it
> ran out of memory. But before the postmaster got a chance to handle the
> SIGCLD to restart it, it handled a SIGUSR1 to start an autovacuum worker.
> That also failed, and the postmaster went to log a message about it, but
> it's blocked on the pipe that's normally connected to the syslogger,
> presumably because the pipe is full because the syslogger is gone and
> hasn't read from it.
Ugh.
> ... that process appears to have exited due to a fatal error
> (out of memory). (I know it exited because the process still exists in the
> kernel -- it hasn't been reaped yet -- and I think it ran out of memory
> based on a log message I found from around the time when the process
> exited.)
Could we see the exact log message(s) involved? It's pretty hard to
believe that the logger would have consumed much memory.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-11-06 20:41:32 | Re: idle in transaction, why |
| Previous Message | Rob Sargent | 2017-11-06 20:24:32 | Re: idle in transaction, why |