| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> |
| Cc: | hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] posmaster failed under high load |
| Date: | 1999-05-05 15:07:13 |
| Message-ID: | 2740.925916833@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> writes:
>> I'm not sure what would block a new backend for many minutes before
>> it did that, however. Can you attach to one of these processes with
>> a debugger and get a backtrace to show what it's doing?
> Below some output from ps and attached backtrace of one postmaster
> process.
Hmm, that backend is quite obviously done with initialization and
waiting for a client command. So why doesn't it show up as
"postgres ... idle" in ps?
I wonder whether we have the ps-info-setting operation in the wrong
place, ie at the bottom of the loop instead of the top, so that a
backend that hasn't yet received its first client command will never
have set the ps data. Will take a look.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-05-05 15:17:27 | Re: [HACKERS] posmaster failed under high load |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-05-05 14:56:57 | Re: [HACKERS] numeric data type on 6.5 |