Re: BUG #13643: Should a process dying bring postgresql down, or not?

On 09/27/2015 09:59 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> amir(dot)rohan(at)mail(dot)com wrote:
>
>> postgres 2181 0.0 0.1 134468 9504 pts/0 T 03:34 0:00 /usr/local/pgsql/bin/postgres -D /home/local/pg/s1
>> postgres 2183 0.0 0.0 134576 4168 ? Ss 03:34 0:00 postgres: checkpointer process
>> postgres 2184 0.0 0.0 134604 2844 ? Ss 03:34 0:00 postgres: writer process
>> postgres 2185 0.0 0.0 134468 2780 ? Ss 03:34 0:00 postgres: wal writer process
>> postgres 2186 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? Zs 03:34 0:00 [postgres] <defunct> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< dead process
>> postgres 2187 0.0 0.0 127300 2204 ? Ss 03:34 0:00 postgres: stats collector process
>> postgres 2193 0.0 0.0 118164 2696 pts/0 T 03:34 0:00 pg_basebackup -D /home/local/pg/backup -p 57833 --format=t -x
>> postgres 2194 0.0 0.0 134916 6016 ? Ss 03:34 0:00 postgres: wal sender process user1 [local] sending backup "pg_basebackup base backup"
>
> That postmaster is in STOPped mode is the issue here. That doesn't
> happen unless you take specific action to do that.
>

I hadn't noticed that. That looks like I suspended pg_ctl during start,
but with the backup in progress already, it's not clear how I managed
that state. There was no kill -SIGSTOP involved...

After killing some subprocesses in random I do see postgres
restarting the whole group once one goes down, if/once its
running/unsuspended.

Excuse the noise.

Amir