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: | 1999-05-06 00:25:24 |
Message-ID: | 7398.925950324@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> writes:
>> It's interesting, that process with pid 701 migrates from
>> (postmaster) to postgres with normal ps output !
> Yes, that's pretty strong evidence in favor of my theory (that these
> processes are just new backends that haven't received a command yet).
Nope, that theory is all wet --- the backend definitely does
PS_SET_STATUS("idle") before it waits for a query. Something is
*really* peculiar here, since your backtrace shows that the backend
has reached the point of waiting for client input. It is not possible
to get there without having done PS_SET_STATUS. So why does the process
still show up as "(postmaster)" in ps? Something is flaky about your
system's support of ps status setting, I think.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Taral | 1999-05-06 01:50:17 | Re: [HACKERS] posmaster failed under high load |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-05-05 23:32:25 | Re: [HACKERS] Problem with function indexing |