| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Victor Yegorov <vyegorov(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #15290: Stuck Parallel Index Scan query |
| Date: | 2018-07-23 04:35:44 |
| Message-ID: | 20180723043544.xg2yvsj6r6b2yuhb@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 2018-07-23 16:30:28 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> TerminateBackgroundWorker() sets a shm flag and signals the
> postmaster, the postmaster signals the worker with SIGTERM, the worker
> handles SIGTERM in die() by setting ProcDiePending = true,
> InterruptPending= true and then setting its own latch, and the
> ConditionVarableSleep() loop should wake up, go around its loop again
> and run CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() which sees InterruptPending and runs
> ProcessInterrupts(), which sees ProcDiePending and reports FATAL. So
> which domino fell short here?
I've not looked at this, but is it possible that interrupts aren't
accepted because they're held (e.g. because of an lwlock)?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Victor Yegorov | 2018-07-23 07:57:55 | Re: BUG #15290: Stuck Parallel Index Scan query |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2018-07-23 04:30:28 | Re: BUG #15290: Stuck Parallel Index Scan query |