From: | Keith Fiske <keith(at)omniti(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 9.6rc1 Background worker starting multiple times |
Date: | 2016-12-20 15:26:37 |
Message-ID: | CAG1_KcCR3XOX_ZR1TAaAYrbbEOkU33TmFqWp6pAbKjUmjcMxUA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 1:42 AM, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Keith Fiske <keith(at)omniti(dot)com> wrote:
> > I'm not quite sure exactly how to debug this further to see what is
> actually
> > setting the latch in 9.6.
>
> The commit you are complaining about here is likely this one:
> commit: db0f6cad4884bd4c835156d3a720d9a79dbd63a9
> author: Robert Haas <rhaas(at)postgresql(dot)org>
> date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 14:31:04 -0400
> Remove set_latch_on_sigusr1 flag.
>
> This flag has proven to be a recipe for bugs, and it doesn't seem like
> it can really buy anything in terms of performance. So let's just
> *always* set the process latch when we receive SIGUSR1 instead of
> trying to do it only when needed.
>
> So your process gets a SIGUSR1 and its latch is set, causing the loop
> to repeat... I would discard that as a backend bug, because the
> removal of set_latch_on_sigusr1 was a good move.
> --
> Michael
>
Anything I can do in the mean time to fix this, or have to wait for a
bugfix patch?
Keith
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2016-12-20 15:30:54 | Re: Postgres8.3 replication issue |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-12-20 14:47:05 | Re: Crash with a CUBE query on 9.6 |