From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: kevent latch paths don't handle postmaster death well |
Date: | 2020-10-14 19:36:37 |
Message-ID: | CA+hUKGKvy_o=gXkbDEnpmJL-PcihAv272v-R+tpX3SdA+NdGVg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 7:58 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> We appear to have already realized that the postmaster died, since we're
> inside proc_exit. WaitForBackgroundWorkerShutdown is doing this:
>
> rc = WaitLatch(MyLatch,
> WL_LATCH_SET | WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH, 0,
> WAIT_EVENT_BGWORKER_SHUTDOWN);
>
> which one would certainly hope would not block at all if the postmaster
> is already dead, yet it's doing so. I guess that the kevent stuff is
> failing to handle the case of another WaitLatch call after the postmaster
> is already known dead.
The process exit event is like an 'edge', not a 'level'... hmm. It
might be enough to set report_postmaster_not_running = true the first
time it tells us so if we try to wait again we'll treat it like a
level. I will look into it later today.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2020-10-14 19:39:00 | jit and explain nontext |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-10-14 19:14:58 | Re: BUG #16663: DROP INDEX did not free up disk space: idle connection hold file marked as deleted |