| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Is PQreset() proper ? |
| Date: | 2000-12-20 19:28:01 |
| Message-ID: | 8937.977340481@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> postmaster: BackendStartup: pid 395 user reindex db reindex socket 5
> DEBUG: exit(2)
> postmaster: reaping dead processes...
> postmaster: CleanupProc: pid 394 exited with status 512
> Server process (pid 394) exited with status 512 at Tue Dec 19 20:12:41 2000
> Terminating any active server processes...
> postmaster: CleanupProc: sending SIGUSR1 to process 395
> postmaster child[395]: starting with (postgres -d2 -v131072 -p reindex )
This isn't PQreset()'s fault that I can see. This is a race condition
caused by bogosity in PostgresMain --- it enables SIGUSR1 before it's
set up the correct signal handler for same. The postmaster should have
started the child process with all signals blocked, so SIGUSR1 will be
held off until the child explicitly enables it; but it does so a few
lines too soon. Will fix.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-12-20 19:42:55 | Re: Sample databases? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-12-20 19:13:29 | Re: Isn't init_irels() dangerous ? |