| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | PG in container w/ pid namespace is init, process exits cause restart |
| Date: | 2021-05-03 19:07:07 |
| Message-ID: | 20210503190707.apw4s5jiol4bvndk@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
A colleague debugged an issue where their postgres was occasionally
crash-restarting under load.
The cause turned out to be that a relatively complex archive_command was
used, which could in some rare circumstances have a bash subshell
pipeline not succeed. It wasn't at all obvious why that'd cause a crash
though - the archive command handles the error.
The issue turns out to be that postgres was in a container, with pid
namespaces enabled. Because postgres was run directly in the container,
without a parent process inside, it thus becomes pid 1. Which mostly
works without a problem. Until, as the case here with the archive
command, a sub-sub process exits while it still has a child. Then that
child gets re-parented to postmaster (as init).
Such a child is likely to have exited not just with 0 or 1, but
something else. As the pid won't match anything in reaper(), we'll go to
CleanupBackend(). Where any exit status but 0/1 will unconditionally
trigger a restart:
if (!EXIT_STATUS_0(exitstatus) && !EXIT_STATUS_1(exitstatus))
{
HandleChildCrash(pid, exitstatus, _("server process"));
return;
}
This kind of thing is pretty hard to debug, because it's not easy to
even figure out what the "crashing" pid belonged to.
I wonder if we should work a bit harder to try to identify whether an
exiting process was a "server process" before identifying it as such?
And perhaps we ought to warn about postgres running as "init" unless we
make that robust?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2021-05-03 19:12:56 | Re: Granting control of SUSET gucs to non-superusers |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2021-05-03 19:06:30 | Re: [PATCH] Identify LWLocks in tracepoints |