Re: We shouldn't signal process groups with SIGQUIT

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Subject: Re: We shouldn't signal process groups with SIGQUIT
Date: 2023-02-15 18:15:19
Message-ID: 20230215181519.GA1353768@nathanxps13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 10:12:58AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2023-02-15 09:57:41 -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> Oh, that's nifty. Any reason not to enable send_abort_for_crash, too?
>
> I think it'd be too noisy. Right now you get just a core dump of the crashed
> process, but if we set send_abort_for_crash we'd end up with a lot of core
> dumps, making it harder to know what to look at.
>
> We should never need the send_abort_for_kill path, so I don't think the noise
> issue applies to the same degree.

Makes sense.

--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2023-02-15 18:18:18 Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys
Previous Message Nathan Bossart 2023-02-15 18:13:17 Re: Improve logging when using Huge Pages