From: | andres(at)anarazel(dot)de (Andres Freund) |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: backends stuck in "startup" |
Date: | 2017-11-21 23:52:39 |
Message-ID: | 20171121235239.5ssxkvmfwvhxavsm@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 2017-11-21 18:50:05 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On 2017-11-21 18:21:16 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> writes:
> >>> As $subject: backends are stuck in startup for minutes at a time. I didn't
> >>> strace this time, but I believe last time I saw one was waiting in a futex.
>
> > A futex? Hm, that was stock postgres?
>
> Sure, since we switched to unnamed-POSIX semaphores in v10. On Linux
> those are futexes.
> (If Justin saw that while still on 9.6, then it'd be worth looking
> closer.)
Right. I took this to be referring to something before the current
migration, but I might have overinterpreted things. There've been
various forks/ports of pg around that had hand-coded replacements with
futex usage, and there were definitely buggy versions going around a few
years back.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-11-22 00:02:01 | Re: backends stuck in "startup" |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-11-21 23:50:05 | Re: backends stuck in "startup" |