From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Terminating pg_basebackup background streamer |
Date: | 2014-02-10 18:39:23 |
Message-ID: | CABUevEyb_-pH2wz7Xd+ZPvYqbf3xDhtUX4BifutVeiCMovpNzg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com
> wrote:
> On 02/09/2014 02:17 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>> If an error occurs in the foreground (backup) process of pg_basebackup,
>> and
>> we exit in a controlled way, the background process (streaming xlog
>> process) would stay around and keep streaming.
>>
>> This can happen for example if disk space runs out and there is very low
>> activity on the server. (If there is activity on the server, the
>> background
>> streamer will also run out of disk space and exit)
>>
>> Attached patch kills it off in disconnect_and_exit(), which seems like the
>> right thing to do to me.
>>
>> Any objections to applying and backpatching that for the upcoming minor
>> releases?
>>
>
> Do you get a different error message with this patch than before? Is the
> new one better than the old one?
Previously you got double error messages - one from the foreground, and a
second one from the background sometime in the future (whenever it
eventually failed, and for whatever reason - so if it was out of disk
space, it would complain about that once it got enough xlog for it to
happen).
With the patch you just get the error message from the first process. The
background process doesn't give an error on SIGTERM, it just exists.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-02-10 18:40:30 | Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2014-02-10 18:33:45 | Re: Memory ordering issue in LWLockRelease, WakeupWaiters, WALInsertSlotRelease |