From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Kohn <djk447(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #15036: Un-killable queries Hanging in BgWorkerShutdown |
Date: | 2018-02-08 00:34:18 |
Message-ID: | CAEepm=2f1+c262jE20W5+9wd7D+mFL_WEUW=gFHH5PSaqYVFKA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 7:06 AM, David Kohn <djk447(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I'm not clear on when we do a SetLatch on those message queues during a
> cancel of parallel workers, and a number of other things that could
> definitely invalidate this analysis, but I think there could be a plausible
> explanation in there somewhere.
shm_mq_detach_internal() does SetLatch(&victim->procLatch) ("victim"
being the counterparty process) after setting mq_detached. So ideally
no one should ever be able to wait forever on a queue from which the
other end has detached, but perhaps there is some race condition style
bug lurking in here. I'm going to do some testing and see if I can
break this...
> Thanks for the help on this, I hope this is helpful and do let me know if a
> stacktrace or anything else would be helpful on my end.
Yeah stack traces would be great, if you can.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-02-08 00:41:48 | Re: PostgreSQL crashes with SIGSEGV |
Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2018-02-07 19:24:06 | Re: BUG #15054: intermittent error: An I/O error occured while sending to the backend. |