| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: The real reason why TAP testing isn't ready for prime time |
| Date: | 2015-06-19 17:16:36 |
| Message-ID: | 20150619171636.GF133014@postgresql.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> We discussed this when that patch got in (82233ce7ea42d6b). The reason
> for not waiting, it was argued, is that the most likely reason for those
> processes not to have already gone away by the time we send SIGKILL was
> that they are stuck somewhere in the kernel, and so we might not be able
> to actually get them to go away with the SIGKILL. As I recall, that was
> the actual problem that MauMau was trying to get fixed.
Hm, I reviewed the discussion and actually I'm wrong: I came up with
the unkillable process argument on my own. MauMau's problem was a
deadlocked process because of trying to malloc() on its way out.
I still think that unkillable processes are an issue, but perhaps it's
sane to have postmaster wait for some time instead of just going away
immediately.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-06-19 18:21:19 | Re: 9.5 release notes |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-06-19 17:02:26 | Re: The real reason why TAP testing isn't ready for prime time |