From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, 158306855 <anderson2013(at)qq(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [BUG] Re-entering malloc problem when use --enable-nls build postgresql |
Date: | 2018-05-08 22:11:05 |
Message-ID: | 20180508221105.rad44j5kplrejxtl@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 2018-05-08 18:04:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > Well, the question is if that'd ever have us defer killing the process
> > for longer. quickdie is intended to actually die quickly.
>
> Yeah. Though now that we have the postmaster mechanism to wait-five-
> seconds-then-SIGKILL, maybe we could rethink that requirement? If we
> reimplemented SIGQUIT to work more like SIGTERM, it would surely be
> a lot safer. There would be cases where a stuck backend wouldn't
> respond and it'd eventually get SIGKILL'd, but in return we'd get rid
> of problems like this one.
Right now we intentionally do not accept interrupts in a couple places
where we want to die quickly because we're making persistent changes. I
don't think it'd be good to continue e.g. committing any longer than
possible after one process segfaulted. One counter-argument to that is
that the timing right now is far from synchronous either.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-05-08 22:15:59 | Re: [BUG] Re-entering malloc problem when use --enable-nls build postgresql |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-05-08 22:04:07 | Re: [BUG] Re-entering malloc problem when use --enable-nls build postgresql |