From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PG in container w/ pid namespace is init, process exits cause restart |
Date: | 2021-05-04 18:55:46 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYb5peEzcTUazF40XiTPhnzzwnwbSynT1r4yYBpO9b+qw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 2:26 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> You are arguing from assumptions not in evidence, specifically that
> if we reap a PID that isn't one we recognize, this must be what
> happened. I think it's *at least* as likely that the case implies
> some bug in the postmaster's child-process bookkeeping, ...
It's hard to rule that out completely, but it doesn't seem incredibly
likely to me. I would think that if we had such bugs they would result
in system instability that is also not in evidence.
> Independently of that, as was pointed out upthread, being init requires
> more than just ignoring unrecognized results from waitpid. We shouldn't
> take on that responsibility when there are perfectly good solutions out
> there already.
That's a separate point that should be judged on its own merits. I
don't have an educated opinion on how hard it would be, or how
valuable it would be.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2021-05-04 18:59:12 | Re: few ideas for pgbench |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2021-05-04 18:52:30 | Re: MaxOffsetNumber for Table AMs |