Re: strange parallel query behavior after OOM crashes

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: strange parallel query behavior after OOM crashes
Date: 2017-04-05 14:01:33
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaJ1Lk4NHA+_K8T6Fq2h9op3LnTn3FpATv6Acywoh8HSQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 6:36 AM, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Yes. But, as Robert suggested up in the thread, we should not use
> (parallel_register_count = 0) as an alternative to define a bgworker
> crash. Hence, I've added an argument named 'wasCrashed' in
> ForgetBackgroundWorker to indicate a bgworker crash.

Did you intend to attach that patch to this email?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stas Kelvich 2017-04-05 14:02:18 Re: logical replication worker and statistics
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-04-05 13:58:41 Re: Functions Immutable but not parallel safe?