| From: | sugita(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp |
|---|---|
| To: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us |
| Cc: | bierman(at)apple(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Mac OS X: system shutdown prevents checkpoint |
| Date: | 2002-07-16 01:22:14 |
| Message-ID: | 20020716.102214.28791430.sugita@sra.co.jp |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 00:45:19 -0400
;;; However, that doesn't explain our OS X problem. I added some debug
;;; printouts, and can now report positively that (a) the fork() call
;;; returns normally in the parent process, providing an apparently-correct
;;; child PID value; but (b) the fork never returns in the child. It
;;; doesn't ever get as far as trying to enable SIGTERM.
&
;;; Is it possible that something in the child's fork() processing will wait
;;; around for a response from a service that's already died? Why is fork()
;;; dependent on any outside service whatever --- isn't that a certain
;;; recipe for system failures?
I asked Apple this issue. This is a bug of Mac OS X. The problem is registered
to their bug database for the appropriate eingineers for investigation.
Kenji Sugita
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Brian Dougherty | 2002-07-16 02:36:58 | COPY seems to work, but no data in the table |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2002-07-15 23:45:15 | Re: table size growing out of control |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-07-16 01:23:08 | Re: Unused system table columns |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-07-16 01:01:43 | Re: [HACKERS] english doc for tree module |